Not in the least. Anyone who has any experience in dealing with MMO's should know by this late stage of the game what is involved. MMO's are some of the most complex software suites in existence. NO ONE does it all right the first time out. There WILL be problems, and there will be delays in adding features.
"Alganon is designed for long-term growth. For the first release we have decided to focus only on a few starting races and classes so that we can refine each to be unique and expansive far beyond what other MMOGs have to offer. Quality, not Quantity. That's what Alganon is about.
Our core design ideology is simple. With every feature we consider, we ask ourselves: Is it fun?"
No mention there of *ANY* limited *focus* or keeping things *simple* to START in a game designed for "long-term growth"......
Yep, certainly something fishy going on, but its not on the Alganon web sites....
"With the Consignment system and auction houses available in key areas, you can find and request what you need to continue crafting, without needing to adventure into far-off areas."
Should read "you will be able to find and request what you need if and when we implement this feature"
"Deities and Crusades are two of the foundational features of Alganon. Deities play an important part in the game's history and the character's interaction with the game by granting special training, powers, and rewards to those who follow them."
Should read "Deities and Crusades are two features we hope to add to Alganon at some time in the future"
"The Kudos system is built for players to give positive feedback to another player."
Should read "The Kudos system will, we hope, be built for players to give positive feedback to another player"
etc. etc.
That page is full of pie-in-the-sky features described as if they were actually in game. The quote you quoted actually makes it worse: if they clearly state that there are a few starting races and classes, you would assume that the features which they don't say are planned for the future do actually exist already.
"With the Consignment system and auction houses available in key areas, you can find and request what you need to continue crafting, without needing to adventure into far-off areas."
Should read "you will be able to find and request what you need if and when we implement this feature"
"Deities and Crusades are two of the foundational features of Alganon. Deities play an important part in the game's history and the character's interaction with the game by granting special training, powers, and rewards to those who follow them."
Should read "Deities and Crusades are two features we hope to add to Alganon at some time in the future"
"The Kudos system is built for players to give positive feedback to another player."
Should read "The Kudos system will, we hope, be built for players to give positive feedback to another player"
etc. etc.
That page is full of pie-in-the-sky features described as if they were actually in game. The quote you quoted actually makes it worse: if they clearly state that there are a few starting races and classes, you would assume that the features which they don't say are planned for the future do actually exist already.
The key to your entire diatribe above is "assume"... Why would one assume such? Your entire argument hinges on that one word. I notice your selective editing and "creative" translations... Those have implications you may not be aware of. If you aren't planning to play the game, what is motivating you to spend your time here?
The key to your entire diatribe above is "assume"... Why would one assume such?
Oh, I dunno, probably because while all salespeople exaggerate, it's not quite so common to blatantly lie and try to take people's money on the strength of features which you know full well are not yet implemented, but which you strongly describe as unique selling points of your game.
If QOL don't want people to assume that features like kudos, deities, crusades, consignment, etc. are in game, they should update their web page and come clean about the fact that there has been a LOT more cut from the design than just some races and classes.
What is motivating me to spend my time here? Just a love of conversation. And, to be frank, amazement that anyone could be quite as fanboyish over such a bad product. I can't recall, did you say you were actually in the beta? I'd understand you a little better if you weren't, and were just a David Allen fanboy who honestly believed all of the hype on the Alganon website.
The key to your entire diatribe above is "assume"... Why would one assume such?
Oh, I dunno, probably because while all salespeople exaggerate, it's not quite so common to blatantly lie and try to take people's money on the strength of features which you know full well are not yet implemented, but which you strongly describe as unique selling points of your game.
If QOL don't want people to assume that features like kudos, deities, crusades, consignment, etc. are in game, they should update their web page and come clean about the fact that there has been a LOT more cut from the design than just some races and classes.
What is motivating me to spend my time here? Just a love of conversation. And, to be frank, amazement that anyone could be quite as fanboyish over such a bad product. I can't recall, did you say you were actually in the beta? I'd understand you a little better if you weren't, and were just a David Allen fanboy who honestly believed all of the hype on the Alganon website.
Well, if you've read some of my posts over a long period of time, I've never made any secret that I'm a long time fan of Dave Allen. His original vision for his first game demonstrated that he is a very talented and imaginative developer. But I'm not uncritical of him. He was naive in trusting someone like David Bowman, and thus giving Bowman the opportunity to back stab him. I'm hoping he learned from that experience. Many people never make it back from a betrayal like that. I'm happy that he is finally getting another chance to impliment his vision. Those of us who support him are doing what we can to help that happen. But its mainly up to him and his team. Time as they say, will tell the tale.
PS, yes I've played the beta. It doesn't change my opinion at all. I well understand the nature of this type of development.
Alganon has many qualities that are promising, but I would prefer to see a few more months put into ironing out any bugs before releasing, especially if they are going to charge their subscription.
My thoughts exactly, people who are buying the game right now are well aware of the fact that there going to be paying for a beta. But when a company dosen't even tell you that alot of features won't be in at launch and asks for money for pre orders where also giving huge bonuses to 1 year players, something unethical is going on.
Not in the least. Anyone who has any experience in dealing with MMO's should know by this late stage of the game what is involved. MMO's are some of the most complex software suites in existence. NO ONE does it all right the first time out. There WILL be problems, and there will be delays in adding features. One of the major initial problems is that everything takes longer to impliment properly than it looked like going in. Also keep in mind that time very much is money. Companies that aren't sitting on huge piles of money like Blizzard and some of the other major corporation backed games can't afford to add everything at launch that they would have liked to. It all comes down to a matter of belief, and what one wants from a game. I believe in Dave Allen's vision for the game. I also believe that he will do his very best to make the game conform to that vision. I'm willing to invest my money in the game to give him the time to do so. I want to be in at the start of something that could well turn out to be a source of continuing entertainment for years and years to come. Many of us who are supporting him feel the same way. In return, those who do support him and his efforts are receiving some reward. There is nothing unethical in the least about that.
Yes launches aren't perfect but here when your already starting with very limited content which isn't even functioning properly, ye you got a problem. And your blizzard example further proves my point, the company is gonna take alot longer to solve bugs and implement things aka its in beta stage. Seriously just look through this thread, your pretty much the only one defending the game or even the official forums where many people are telling devs to change price/ delay game but 3-4 people keep quoting every single person and debating. You want to stick to David allen's vision go ahead, but remember devs are here to make money and probably don't care what you think about them.
Alganon has many qualities that are promising, but I would prefer to see a few more months put into ironing out any bugs before releasing, especially if they are going to charge their subscription.
My thoughts exactly, people who are buying the game right now are well aware of the fact that there going to be paying for a beta. But when a company dosen't even tell you that alot of features won't be in at launch and asks for money for pre orders where also giving huge bonuses to 1 year players, something unethical is going on.
Not in the least. Anyone who has any experience in dealing with MMO's should know by this late stage of the game what is involved. MMO's are some of the most complex software suites in existence. NO ONE does it all right the first time out. There WILL be problems, and there will be delays in adding features. One of the major initial problems is that everything takes longer to impliment properly than it looked like going in. Also keep in mind that time very much is money. Companies that aren't sitting on huge piles of money like Blizzard and some of the other major corporation backed games can't afford to add everything at launch that they would have liked to. It all comes down to a matter of belief, and what one wants from a game. I believe in Dave Allen's vision for the game. I also believe that he will do his very best to make the game conform to that vision. I'm willing to invest my money in the game to give him the time to do so. I want to be in at the start of something that could well turn out to be a source of continuing entertainment for years and years to come. Many of us who are supporting him feel the same way. In return, those who do support him and his efforts are receiving some reward. There is nothing unethical in the least about that.
Yes launches aren't perfect but here when your already starting with very limited content which isn't even functioning properly, ye you got a problem. And your blizzard example further proves my point, the company is gonna take alot longer to solve bugs and implement things aka its in beta stage. Seriously just look through this thread, your pretty much the only one defending the game or even the official forums where many people are telling devs to change price/ delay game but 3-4 people keep quoting every single person and debating. You want to stick to David allen's vision go ahead, but remember devs are here to make money and probably don't care what you think about them.
Seriously, have you ever been in a beta, where there were not people saying that the Sky Is Falling! Wait! Its not ready! Etc Etc Etc? I know I've not. This is just par for the course these days. As for numbers, I'd be saying the same thing if I was the only one in the world defending it. But I'm FAR from the only supporter that Dave Allen has. Of course the Dev's are here to make money. Thats one of the objects of the exercise. But thats hardly the only reason they are here. As I said, time will tell the tale.
I 'm a Dave Allen fan. I bought Demise and played Horizons. I've yet to see any vision in Alganon. Maybe in six months they'll get there if they don't run out of money. Right now it's mainly copy, rename, copy, rename, etc... They want to implement a WoW-clone base and build on it. I can understand that. But they haven't come close to getting the base working and none of the interesting bits are there. In every other beta I've been in the vision has been part of the beta. I'm looking forward to the NDA lifting tomorrow so I can talk about specifics.
Seriously, have you ever been in a beta, where there were not people saying that the Sky Is Falling! Wait! Its not ready! Etc Etc Etc? I know I've not. This is just par for the course these days.
Sure, I've been in a good half dozen MMO betas, and it's true, every one of them had people saying the sky was falling, every one of them could have benefited from more time in development before launch. And in some cases, let's say WAR for example, it's fair to say the sky did fall - games were released in a state that gamers did not find acceptable, initial sales failed to translate into ongoing subscriptions, and jobs were lost - e.g. using WAR as an example again, Mark Jacobs falling on his sword.
But I can say without a shadow of a doubt that every one of the half dozen or so MMOs I've beta tested prior to Alganon were a lot more ready for release than it is. A LOT.
Look, let's put aside the hostility for a moment. You think David Allen has some great game-design ideas and you want to see them put into practice. I don't disagree. But I really honestly believe that launching Alganon in five days time is going to mean that you won't get to see those ideas put into practice. Now maybe they're between a rock and a hard place, with a game that isn't ready for launch but upon which further development simply cannot be funded unless they do launch - I suspect that's the position WAR was in, when it came out, after multiple delays, with chunks of content cut out.
But Alganon is so not ready, that if it launches now, it will fail. Reviews will be merciless. Anyone who comes in cold, just looking to play an entertaining game rather than to support an independent developer, will be horrified, and will not stick around. Nor will many of them return if things improve - AoC and WAR have both demonstrated that you can make great improvements after a bad launch and still not get anyone to give you a second chance. And the subscription revenue from a core of true believers like yourself will not be enough to pay the bills.
Having finally seen someone playing this game, I'll have to add to the concerns that this game is a long way from being ready to go live.
If you can't keep the servers up for a few days straight, without incident, you're not ready.
Unfortunately, I think the developers must have made some wild promises to their investors. Otherwise, I can't imagine why on earth they would have announced the October 31st go-live date when they did, and I can't imagine why they still haven't stepped back and pushed back the release to an as-of-yet-unspecified date.
The folks at QOL really need to step back and consider the consequences of going live with a game that is clearly only in early-beta stages.
Whether or not their pricing model is going to work will be moot if they go live anytime soon. They'll guarantee the game's doom. Unfortunately, the only logical explanation is that they're out of money, and the bad economy has dried up any further investment in the game.
Originally posted by Delanor Originally posted by Vagrant_Zero
Originally posted by Delanor So, normal pricing, not more expensive than games like lotro, war, aoc, wow, eq2. That was to be expected.
Uh no. Lotro costs $10 to purchase (that includes the original game AND Moria expansion) and if you go on a 3 month sub for $30 you get the expansion coming out in December for free. So no..it's nothing like Lotro. But keep spinning away.
At launch LOTRO did cost $49.99. Go troll somewhere else.
I'm so glad that you decided to save 2007 in your special place. Should your head bother to void the premises and join the rest of us here in 2009 you'll find that consumers have options and competing MMOs with significantly more content (even at launch) are a worthwhile consideration.
Bottom line is at launch this game is going to be stillborn. It's price is one of many reasons that will attribute to this.
As you suggested I may end up having to "troll somewhere else" simply because the game will be dead so quickly. That'd be a shame.
So, normal pricing, not more expensive than games like lotro, war, aoc, wow, eq2. That was to be expected.
Uh no. Lotro costs $10 to purchase (that includes the original game AND Moria expansion) and if you go on a 3 month sub for $30 you get the expansion coming out in December for free.
So no..it's nothing like Lotro.
But keep spinning away.
At launch LOTRO did cost $49.99. Go troll somewhere else.
I'm so glad that you decided to save 2007 in your special place. Should your head bother to void the premises and join the rest of us here in 2009 you'll find that consumers have options and competing MMOs with significantly more content (even at launch) are a worthwhile consideration.
Bottom line is at launch this game is going to be stillborn. It's price is one of many reasons that will attribute to this.
As you suggested I may end up having to "troll somewhere else" simply because the game will be dead so quickly. That'd be a shame.
But really...I don't think you care.
Yes, some folks, in their dedication to a particular game, choose to ignore the marketplace as it is now and learn the lessons of the past few years.
One benefit that a new game being released today has is to examine the case studies of all the failed games, as well as those that almost failed but managed to claw back from the brink and find success.
There are a lot of us who would like to see a game like Alganon succeed, but we cannot get our constructive criticism past the overly-passionate early-adopters.
If Alganon had come up with a staggered approach, since this game just isn't even close to done, they would have a higher chance for success. An example of an Alganon pricing plan I could get on board with:
Release: $15, + $5/month
Expansion 1: $15, increase to $10/ month
Expansion 2: $20, increase to $15/ month
Or
Release: Free to Play
Expansion: $10-15/month for full version (including that in-game deity business, PvP and expanded areas), basic/limited initial release area and rudimentary studies remain Free to Play (a la Runescape).
Community is one of a MMORPGs greatest features. Either of these models would create a much larger community than this $50/15 business, and be fairer to players/subscribers considering the state of the game at this point in it's development.
Seriously, have you ever been in a beta, where there were not people saying that the Sky Is Falling! Wait! Its not ready! Etc Etc Etc? I know I've not. This is just par for the course these days.
Sure, I've been in a good half dozen MMO betas, and it's true, every one of them had people saying the sky was falling, every one of them could have benefited from more time in development before launch. And in some cases, let's say WAR for example, it's fair to say the sky did fall - games were released in a state that gamers did not find acceptable, initial sales failed to translate into ongoing subscriptions, and jobs were lost - e.g. using WAR as an example again, Mark Jacobs falling on his sword.
But I can say without a shadow of a doubt that every one of the half dozen or so MMOs I've beta tested prior to Alganon were a lot more ready for release than it is. A LOT.
Look, let's put aside the hostility for a moment. You think David Allen has some great game-design ideas and you want to see them put into practice. I don't disagree. But I really honestly believe that launching Alganon in five days time is going to mean that you won't get to see those ideas put into practice. Now maybe they're between a rock and a hard place, with a game that isn't ready for launch but upon which further development simply cannot be funded unless they do launch - I suspect that's the position WAR was in, when it came out, after multiple delays, with chunks of content cut out.
But Alganon is so not ready, that if it launches now, it will fail. Reviews will be merciless. Anyone who comes in cold, just looking to play an entertaining game rather than to support an independent developer, will be horrified, and will not stick around. Nor will many of them return if things improve - AoC and WAR have both demonstrated that you can make great improvements after a bad launch and still not get anyone to give you a second chance. And the subscription revenue from a core of true believers like yourself will not be enough to pay the bills.
Do you want that to happen?
Of course not. But given how bad the economy is doing(once one discounts the flood of debt money the feds have dumped into the system) I'd not be surprised if their investors are in a panic. If they have been issued an ultimatum, such that they will lose funding if they don't launch, they have little choice. Keep in mind that investors know very little about games, and think only in terms of what have you done for me this *quarter*. It would hardly be the first(nor sadly the last) such instance of that. I quite agree that it could use some more polish, but when its publish or perish, one does what one can. Once again, time will tell if they can pull it off.
Alganon dosent have investors, its owned by david allen and his partner. So there's no excuse in releasing early, if your in beta go read my thread there it has info on this subject.
Alganon dosent have investors, its owned by david allen and his partner. So there's no excuse in releasing early, if your in beta go read my thread there it has info on this subject.
From QOL website:
"Quest Online was founded in February 2006 by David Allen and Greg Wexler in Chandler, AZ to design, develop, and produce online games. Privately funded by angel investors and majority owned by the founders..."
While they're "majority owned by the founders" (i.e., Allen & Wexler have maintained a majority share of equity), I'm guessing that to get more money from any more angel investors (or any kind of investors), I have to assume they're being pressured to produce some results. Otherwise, I can't understand why they would be willing to go forward at this point.
Well if they really want to make a good product, wexler has many businesses worth millions so they could just get money from there and when they own the majority of the company i'm not sure why they would want to get hit themself to please the minority.
Well if they really want to make a good product, wexler has many businesses worth millions so they could just get money from there and when they own the majority of the company i'm not sure why they would want to get hit themself to please the minority.
Seeing as how they're in Phoenix Arizona, one of the cities hardest hit by the bursting of the housing bubble and ensuing recession, there's a good chance those businesses could have fallen on hard times. The other investors may be desperate as well if they were also just local businessmen who bought into the Founders' pitch of "I can get us X percent of WoW", then saw their other wealth disappear as a result of the recession.
There's a good chance that any new investors they may be considering are, at this stage, going to be more savvy and more demanding in terms of equity, and they're trying to fend off the need to go that route. That usually happens in second and third rounds of financing. You end up losing lots of equity and control. After all, keeping a business with 50+ people employed could be costing them anywhere from $200K-500K per week.
We can only speculate, though. There has to be some pressure that we're not aware of. Allen seems to have been in this business long enough to know better, I would think.
Alganon dosent have investors, its owned by david allen and his partner. So there's no excuse in releasing early, if your in beta go read my thread there it has info on this subject.
From QOL website:
"Quest Online was founded in February 2006 by David Allen and Greg Wexler in Chandler, AZ to design, develop, and produce online games. Privately funded by angel investors and majority owned by the founders..."
While they're "majority owned by the founders" (i.e., Allen & Wexler have maintained a majority share of equity), I'm guessing that to get more money from any more angel investors (or any kind of investors), I have to assume they're being pressured to produce some results. Otherwise, I can't understand why they would be willing to go forward at this point.
Thanks, you saved me the effort of pointing that out myself. Some times "angel investors" trade their halos in for horns and pitchforks... ^^
Alganon dosent have investors, its owned by david allen and his partner. So there's no excuse in releasing early, if your in beta go read my thread there it has info on this subject.
From QOL website:
"Quest Online was founded in February 2006 by David Allen and Greg Wexler in Chandler, AZ to design, develop, and produce online games. Privately funded by angel investors and majority owned by the founders..."
While they're "majority owned by the founders" (i.e., Allen & Wexler have maintained a majority share of equity), I'm guessing that to get more money from any more angel investors (or any kind of investors), I have to assume they're being pressured to produce some results. Otherwise, I can't understand why they would be willing to go forward at this point.
Thanks, you saved me the effort of pointing that out myself. Some times "angel investors" trade their halos in for horns and pitchforks... ^^
Sure, that could be the case, but there's no way to justify the pricing. You only set a competitive price if you have a competitive product. Sure World of Warcraft was able to sell an unpolished game (compared to today) for the same price back in 2004, but the state of the MMO industry these days are completely different than before. When WoW was first released, the game was actually considered at least more polished compared to the few others that were out there at the time.
Now, we have a much larger selection of games and if you are going to put top dollar pricing, you should expect to have top dollar quality or else people will flat out not pay. It's not because their cheap or they don't believe in the company. Most people tend to look for getting their moneys worth and if what they see is what they get, then Alganon has a long way to go. Why play a unpolished game in a fantasy setting when there many others out there that have been out longer, more polished and brings the same exact things to the table.
What exactly does Alganon bring that no other MMORPG, I have yet to figure out and this has so far been anunanswered question. All I can see are offline progression to a fantasy MMORPG and the concept of offline progression (especially the way they implemented it) looks entirely ripped off EVE Online, like a poor man's version. No fancy bar to measure my 24 hours or scrollable Studies interface where I can actually see what other studies I have put on queue beyond the 8 it can only display.
I have to echo many others sentiment and agree to the fact that this game would probably be better off starting off as F2P with a store. I think forcing people to pay top dollar for a below mediocre game is ridiculous. At least price it for what its worth, they'll probably have a better chance of making money. I'm a player, not an investor and so I shouldn't have to take a stance as such being a customer if I were to consider playing the game. Until I get a return on my "investments", the whole investor perspective is rather redundant being applied to consumers.
Watch what you read as fact about a game...posted here at MMORPG.com.
Seems to me that testers might be trying to make their voice heard without violating the NDA. Just seems funny to me that you see post appear right before a launch that would sway people from buying a game. Happens a lot here....but make me wonder about the posters....
The NDA was lifted for this game Oct. 26....that's yesterday. Just an F.Y.I.
Watch what you read as fact about a game...posted here at MMORPG.com.
Seems to me that testers might be trying to make their voice heard without violating the NDA. Just seems funny to me that you see post appear right before a launch that would sway people from buying a game. Happens a lot here....but make me wonder about the posters....
The NDA was lifted for this game Oct. 26....that's yesterday. Just an F.Y.I.
Gestankfaust's post was from 10/16, 10 days before the NDA was lifted.
I think that the monthly price of an MMO is mostly focused on the operational cost to run the MMO not based on what is delivered. I think an MMO uses servers, power, network, support people, billing people. Add that cost together and that is the operating cost. Figure how many players you can support relative to the costs and that gives you a base sub cost. Then add any ongoing development, patches, new stuff and I think you got a base sub. round it up some for profit and paying debts. Other then the paying debts part any game would be comparable in operation costs to any other game. The only difference would be the amount of ongoing development you want to support and the more subs you have the cheaper that cost would be.
So I don't think a game based on a pay to play model has much latitude in costs.
Comments
http://www.alganon.com/about-alganon and http://www.alganon.com/features both very strongly give the impression that a great many features are in the game when they quite simply are not. It borders on false advertising.
This is a clip from the first URL above.
"Alganon is designed for long-term growth. For the first release we have decided to focus only on a few starting races and classes so that we can refine each to be unique and expansive far beyond what other MMOGs have to offer. Quality, not Quantity. That's what Alganon is about.
Our core design ideology is simple. With every feature we consider, we ask ourselves: Is it fun?"
No mention there of *ANY* limited *focus* or keeping things *simple* to START in a game designed for "long-term growth"...
...
Yep, certainly something fishy going on, but its not on the Alganon web sites....
And here are some more..
"With the Consignment system and auction houses available in key areas, you can find and request what you need to continue crafting, without needing to adventure into far-off areas."
Should read "you will be able to find and request what you need if and when we implement this feature"
"Deities and Crusades are two of the foundational features of Alganon. Deities play an important part in the game's history and the character's interaction with the game by granting special training, powers, and rewards to those who follow them."
Should read "Deities and Crusades are two features we hope to add to Alganon at some time in the future"
"The Kudos system is built for players to give positive feedback to another player."
Should read "The Kudos system will, we hope, be built for players to give positive feedback to another player"
etc. etc.
That page is full of pie-in-the-sky features described as if they were actually in game. The quote you quoted actually makes it worse: if they clearly state that there are a few starting races and classes, you would assume that the features which they don't say are planned for the future do actually exist already.
And here are some more..
"With the Consignment system and auction houses available in key areas, you can find and request what you need to continue crafting, without needing to adventure into far-off areas."
Should read "you will be able to find and request what you need if and when we implement this feature"
"Deities and Crusades are two of the foundational features of Alganon. Deities play an important part in the game's history and the character's interaction with the game by granting special training, powers, and rewards to those who follow them."
Should read "Deities and Crusades are two features we hope to add to Alganon at some time in the future"
"The Kudos system is built for players to give positive feedback to another player."
Should read "The Kudos system will, we hope, be built for players to give positive feedback to another player"
etc. etc.
That page is full of pie-in-the-sky features described as if they were actually in game. The quote you quoted actually makes it worse: if they clearly state that there are a few starting races and classes, you would assume that the features which they don't say are planned for the future do actually exist already.
The key to your entire diatribe above is "assume"... Why would one assume such? Your entire argument hinges on that one word. I notice your selective editing and "creative" translations... Those have implications you may not be aware of. If you aren't planning to play the game, what is motivating you to spend your time here?
Oh, I dunno, probably because while all salespeople exaggerate, it's not quite so common to blatantly lie and try to take people's money on the strength of features which you know full well are not yet implemented, but which you strongly describe as unique selling points of your game.
If QOL don't want people to assume that features like kudos, deities, crusades, consignment, etc. are in game, they should update their web page and come clean about the fact that there has been a LOT more cut from the design than just some races and classes.
What is motivating me to spend my time here? Just a love of conversation. And, to be frank, amazement that anyone could be quite as fanboyish over such a bad product. I can't recall, did you say you were actually in the beta? I'd understand you a little better if you weren't, and were just a David Allen fanboy who honestly believed all of the hype on the Alganon website.
Oh, I dunno, probably because while all salespeople exaggerate, it's not quite so common to blatantly lie and try to take people's money on the strength of features which you know full well are not yet implemented, but which you strongly describe as unique selling points of your game.
If QOL don't want people to assume that features like kudos, deities, crusades, consignment, etc. are in game, they should update their web page and come clean about the fact that there has been a LOT more cut from the design than just some races and classes.
What is motivating me to spend my time here? Just a love of conversation. And, to be frank, amazement that anyone could be quite as fanboyish over such a bad product. I can't recall, did you say you were actually in the beta? I'd understand you a little better if you weren't, and were just a David Allen fanboy who honestly believed all of the hype on the Alganon website.
Well, if you've read some of my posts over a long period of time, I've never made any secret that I'm a long time fan of Dave Allen. His original vision for his first game demonstrated that he is a very talented and imaginative developer. But I'm not uncritical of him. He was naive in trusting someone like David Bowman, and thus giving Bowman the opportunity to back stab him. I'm hoping he learned from that experience. Many people never make it back from a betrayal like that. I'm happy that he is finally getting another chance to impliment his vision. Those of us who support him are doing what we can to help that happen. But its mainly up to him and his team. Time as they say, will tell the tale.
PS, yes I've played the beta. It doesn't change my opinion at all. I well understand the nature of this type of development.
My thoughts exactly, people who are buying the game right now are well aware of the fact that there going to be paying for a beta. But when a company dosen't even tell you that alot of features won't be in at launch and asks for money for pre orders where also giving huge bonuses to 1 year players, something unethical is going on.
Not in the least. Anyone who has any experience in dealing with MMO's should know by this late stage of the game what is involved. MMO's are some of the most complex software suites in existence. NO ONE does it all right the first time out. There WILL be problems, and there will be delays in adding features. One of the major initial problems is that everything takes longer to impliment properly than it looked like going in. Also keep in mind that time very much is money. Companies that aren't sitting on huge piles of money like Blizzard and some of the other major corporation backed games can't afford to add everything at launch that they would have liked to. It all comes down to a matter of belief, and what one wants from a game. I believe in Dave Allen's vision for the game. I also believe that he will do his very best to make the game conform to that vision. I'm willing to invest my money in the game to give him the time to do so. I want to be in at the start of something that could well turn out to be a source of continuing entertainment for years and years to come. Many of us who are supporting him feel the same way. In return, those who do support him and his efforts are receiving some reward. There is nothing unethical in the least about that.
Yes launches aren't perfect but here when your already starting with very limited content which isn't even functioning properly, ye you got a problem. And your blizzard example further proves my point, the company is gonna take alot longer to solve bugs and implement things aka its in beta stage. Seriously just look through this thread, your pretty much the only one defending the game or even the official forums where many people are telling devs to change price/ delay game but 3-4 people keep quoting every single person and debating. You want to stick to David allen's vision go ahead, but remember devs are here to make money and probably don't care what you think about them.
My thoughts exactly, people who are buying the game right now are well aware of the fact that there going to be paying for a beta. But when a company dosen't even tell you that alot of features won't be in at launch and asks for money for pre orders where also giving huge bonuses to 1 year players, something unethical is going on.
Not in the least. Anyone who has any experience in dealing with MMO's should know by this late stage of the game what is involved. MMO's are some of the most complex software suites in existence. NO ONE does it all right the first time out. There WILL be problems, and there will be delays in adding features. One of the major initial problems is that everything takes longer to impliment properly than it looked like going in. Also keep in mind that time very much is money. Companies that aren't sitting on huge piles of money like Blizzard and some of the other major corporation backed games can't afford to add everything at launch that they would have liked to. It all comes down to a matter of belief, and what one wants from a game. I believe in Dave Allen's vision for the game. I also believe that he will do his very best to make the game conform to that vision. I'm willing to invest my money in the game to give him the time to do so. I want to be in at the start of something that could well turn out to be a source of continuing entertainment for years and years to come. Many of us who are supporting him feel the same way. In return, those who do support him and his efforts are receiving some reward. There is nothing unethical in the least about that.
Yes launches aren't perfect but here when your already starting with very limited content which isn't even functioning properly, ye you got a problem. And your blizzard example further proves my point, the company is gonna take alot longer to solve bugs and implement things aka its in beta stage. Seriously just look through this thread, your pretty much the only one defending the game or even the official forums where many people are telling devs to change price/ delay game but 3-4 people keep quoting every single person and debating. You want to stick to David allen's vision go ahead, but remember devs are here to make money and probably don't care what you think about them.
Seriously, have you ever been in a beta, where there were not people saying that the Sky Is Falling! Wait! Its not ready! Etc Etc Etc? I know I've not. This is just par for the course these days. As for numbers, I'd be saying the same thing if I was the only one in the world defending it. But I'm FAR from the only supporter that Dave Allen has. Of course the Dev's are here to make money. Thats one of the objects of the exercise. But thats hardly the only reason they are here. As I said, time will tell the tale.
I 'm a Dave Allen fan. I bought Demise and played Horizons. I've yet to see any vision in Alganon. Maybe in six months they'll get there if they don't run out of money. Right now it's mainly copy, rename, copy, rename, etc... They want to implement a WoW-clone base and build on it. I can understand that. But they haven't come close to getting the base working and none of the interesting bits are there. In every other beta I've been in the vision has been part of the beta. I'm looking forward to the NDA lifting tomorrow so I can talk about specifics.
Sure, I've been in a good half dozen MMO betas, and it's true, every one of them had people saying the sky was falling, every one of them could have benefited from more time in development before launch. And in some cases, let's say WAR for example, it's fair to say the sky did fall - games were released in a state that gamers did not find acceptable, initial sales failed to translate into ongoing subscriptions, and jobs were lost - e.g. using WAR as an example again, Mark Jacobs falling on his sword.
But I can say without a shadow of a doubt that every one of the half dozen or so MMOs I've beta tested prior to Alganon were a lot more ready for release than it is. A LOT.
Look, let's put aside the hostility for a moment. You think David Allen has some great game-design ideas and you want to see them put into practice. I don't disagree. But I really honestly believe that launching Alganon in five days time is going to mean that you won't get to see those ideas put into practice. Now maybe they're between a rock and a hard place, with a game that isn't ready for launch but upon which further development simply cannot be funded unless they do launch - I suspect that's the position WAR was in, when it came out, after multiple delays, with chunks of content cut out.
But Alganon is so not ready, that if it launches now, it will fail. Reviews will be merciless. Anyone who comes in cold, just looking to play an entertaining game rather than to support an independent developer, will be horrified, and will not stick around. Nor will many of them return if things improve - AoC and WAR have both demonstrated that you can make great improvements after a bad launch and still not get anyone to give you a second chance. And the subscription revenue from a core of true believers like yourself will not be enough to pay the bills.
Do you want that to happen?
Having finally seen someone playing this game, I'll have to add to the concerns that this game is a long way from being ready to go live.
If you can't keep the servers up for a few days straight, without incident, you're not ready.
Unfortunately, I think the developers must have made some wild promises to their investors. Otherwise, I can't imagine why on earth they would have announced the October 31st go-live date when they did, and I can't imagine why they still haven't stepped back and pushed back the release to an as-of-yet-unspecified date.
The folks at QOL really need to step back and consider the consequences of going live with a game that is clearly only in early-beta stages.
Whether or not their pricing model is going to work will be moot if they go live anytime soon. They'll guarantee the game's doom. Unfortunately, the only logical explanation is that they're out of money, and the bad economy has dried up any further investment in the game.
Uh no. Lotro costs $10 to purchase (that includes the original game AND Moria expansion) and if you go on a 3 month sub for $30 you get the expansion coming out in December for free.
So no..it's nothing like Lotro.
But keep spinning away.
At launch LOTRO did cost $49.99. Go troll somewhere else.
I'm so glad that you decided to save 2007 in your special place. Should your head bother to void the premises and join the rest of us here in 2009 you'll find that consumers have options and competing MMOs with significantly more content (even at launch) are a worthwhile consideration.
Bottom line is at launch this game is going to be stillborn. It's price is one of many reasons that will attribute to this.
As you suggested I may end up having to "troll somewhere else" simply because the game will be dead so quickly. That'd be a shame.
But really...I don't think you care.
Alltern8 Blog | Star Wars Space Combat and The Old Republic | Cryptic Studios - A Pre Post-Mortem | Klingon Preview, STO's Monster Play
Uh no. Lotro costs $10 to purchase (that includes the original game AND Moria expansion) and if you go on a 3 month sub for $30 you get the expansion coming out in December for free.
So no..it's nothing like Lotro.
But keep spinning away.
At launch LOTRO did cost $49.99. Go troll somewhere else.
I'm so glad that you decided to save 2007 in your special place. Should your head bother to void the premises and join the rest of us here in 2009 you'll find that consumers have options and competing MMOs with significantly more content (even at launch) are a worthwhile consideration.
Bottom line is at launch this game is going to be stillborn. It's price is one of many reasons that will attribute to this.
As you suggested I may end up having to "troll somewhere else" simply because the game will be dead so quickly. That'd be a shame.
But really...I don't think you care.
Yes, some folks, in their dedication to a particular game, choose to ignore the marketplace as it is now and learn the lessons of the past few years.
One benefit that a new game being released today has is to examine the case studies of all the failed games, as well as those that almost failed but managed to claw back from the brink and find success.
There are a lot of us who would like to see a game like Alganon succeed, but we cannot get our constructive criticism past the overly-passionate early-adopters.
If Alganon had come up with a staggered approach, since this game just isn't even close to done, they would have a higher chance for success. An example of an Alganon pricing plan I could get on board with:
Release: $15, + $5/month
Expansion 1: $15, increase to $10/ month
Expansion 2: $20, increase to $15/ month
Or
Release: Free to Play
Expansion: $10-15/month for full version (including that in-game deity business, PvP and expanded areas), basic/limited initial release area and rudimentary studies remain Free to Play (a la Runescape).
Community is one of a MMORPGs greatest features. Either of these models would create a much larger community than this $50/15 business, and be fairer to players/subscribers considering the state of the game at this point in it's development.
Sure, I've been in a good half dozen MMO betas, and it's true, every one of them had people saying the sky was falling, every one of them could have benefited from more time in development before launch. And in some cases, let's say WAR for example, it's fair to say the sky did fall - games were released in a state that gamers did not find acceptable, initial sales failed to translate into ongoing subscriptions, and jobs were lost - e.g. using WAR as an example again, Mark Jacobs falling on his sword.
But I can say without a shadow of a doubt that every one of the half dozen or so MMOs I've beta tested prior to Alganon were a lot more ready for release than it is. A LOT.
Look, let's put aside the hostility for a moment. You think David Allen has some great game-design ideas and you want to see them put into practice. I don't disagree. But I really honestly believe that launching Alganon in five days time is going to mean that you won't get to see those ideas put into practice. Now maybe they're between a rock and a hard place, with a game that isn't ready for launch but upon which further development simply cannot be funded unless they do launch - I suspect that's the position WAR was in, when it came out, after multiple delays, with chunks of content cut out.
But Alganon is so not ready, that if it launches now, it will fail. Reviews will be merciless. Anyone who comes in cold, just looking to play an entertaining game rather than to support an independent developer, will be horrified, and will not stick around. Nor will many of them return if things improve - AoC and WAR have both demonstrated that you can make great improvements after a bad launch and still not get anyone to give you a second chance. And the subscription revenue from a core of true believers like yourself will not be enough to pay the bills.
Do you want that to happen?
Of course not. But given how bad the economy is doing(once one discounts the flood of debt money the feds have dumped into the system) I'd not be surprised if their investors are in a panic. If they have been issued an ultimatum, such that they will lose funding if they don't launch, they have little choice. Keep in mind that investors know very little about games, and think only in terms of what have you done for me this *quarter*. It would hardly be the first(nor sadly the last) such instance of that. I quite agree that it could use some more polish, but when its publish or perish, one does what one can. Once again, time will tell if they can pull it off.
Alganon dosent have investors, its owned by david allen and his partner. So there's no excuse in releasing early, if your in beta go read my thread there it has info on this subject.
From QOL website:
"Quest Online was founded in February 2006 by David Allen and Greg Wexler in Chandler, AZ to design, develop, and produce online games. Privately funded by angel investors and majority owned by the founders..."
While they're "majority owned by the founders" (i.e., Allen & Wexler have maintained a majority share of equity), I'm guessing that to get more money from any more angel investors (or any kind of investors), I have to assume they're being pressured to produce some results. Otherwise, I can't understand why they would be willing to go forward at this point.
Well if they really want to make a good product, wexler has many businesses worth millions so they could just get money from there and when they own the majority of the company i'm not sure why they would want to get hit themself to please the minority.
Seeing as how they're in Phoenix Arizona, one of the cities hardest hit by the bursting of the housing bubble and ensuing recession, there's a good chance those businesses could have fallen on hard times. The other investors may be desperate as well if they were also just local businessmen who bought into the Founders' pitch of "I can get us X percent of WoW", then saw their other wealth disappear as a result of the recession.
There's a good chance that any new investors they may be considering are, at this stage, going to be more savvy and more demanding in terms of equity, and they're trying to fend off the need to go that route. That usually happens in second and third rounds of financing. You end up losing lots of equity and control. After all, keeping a business with 50+ people employed could be costing them anywhere from $200K-500K per week.
We can only speculate, though. There has to be some pressure that we're not aware of. Allen seems to have been in this business long enough to know better, I would think.
From QOL website:
"Quest Online was founded in February 2006 by David Allen and Greg Wexler in Chandler, AZ to design, develop, and produce online games. Privately funded by angel investors and majority owned by the founders..."
While they're "majority owned by the founders" (i.e., Allen & Wexler have maintained a majority share of equity), I'm guessing that to get more money from any more angel investors (or any kind of investors), I have to assume they're being pressured to produce some results. Otherwise, I can't understand why they would be willing to go forward at this point.
Thanks, you saved me the effort of pointing that out myself. Some times "angel investors" trade their halos in for horns and pitchforks... ^^
From QOL website:
"Quest Online was founded in February 2006 by David Allen and Greg Wexler in Chandler, AZ to design, develop, and produce online games. Privately funded by angel investors and majority owned by the founders..."
While they're "majority owned by the founders" (i.e., Allen & Wexler have maintained a majority share of equity), I'm guessing that to get more money from any more angel investors (or any kind of investors), I have to assume they're being pressured to produce some results. Otherwise, I can't understand why they would be willing to go forward at this point.
Thanks, you saved me the effort of pointing that out myself. Some times "angel investors" trade their halos in for horns and pitchforks... ^^
Sure, that could be the case, but there's no way to justify the pricing. You only set a competitive price if you have a competitive product. Sure World of Warcraft was able to sell an unpolished game (compared to today) for the same price back in 2004, but the state of the MMO industry these days are completely different than before. When WoW was first released, the game was actually considered at least more polished compared to the few others that were out there at the time.
Now, we have a much larger selection of games and if you are going to put top dollar pricing, you should expect to have top dollar quality or else people will flat out not pay. It's not because their cheap or they don't believe in the company. Most people tend to look for getting their moneys worth and if what they see is what they get, then Alganon has a long way to go. Why play a unpolished game in a fantasy setting when there many others out there that have been out longer, more polished and brings the same exact things to the table.
What exactly does Alganon bring that no other MMORPG, I have yet to figure out and this has so far been anunanswered question. All I can see are offline progression to a fantasy MMORPG and the concept of offline progression (especially the way they implemented it) looks entirely ripped off EVE Online, like a poor man's version. No fancy bar to measure my 24 hours or scrollable Studies interface where I can actually see what other studies I have put on queue beyond the 8 it can only display.
I have to echo many others sentiment and agree to the fact that this game would probably be better off starting off as F2P with a store. I think forcing people to pay top dollar for a below mediocre game is ridiculous. At least price it for what its worth, they'll probably have a better chance of making money. I'm a player, not an investor and so I shouldn't have to take a stance as such being a customer if I were to consider playing the game. Until I get a return on my "investments", the whole investor perspective is rather redundant being applied to consumers.
The NDA was lifted for this game Oct. 26....that's yesterday. Just an F.Y.I.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
The NDA was lifted for this game Oct. 26....that's yesterday. Just an F.Y.I.
Gestankfaust's post was from 10/16, 10 days before the NDA was lifted.
I think that the monthly price of an MMO is mostly focused on the operational cost to run the MMO not based on what is delivered. I think an MMO uses servers, power, network, support people, billing people. Add that cost together and that is the operating cost. Figure how many players you can support relative to the costs and that gives you a base sub cost. Then add any ongoing development, patches, new stuff and I think you got a base sub. round it up some for profit and paying debts. Other then the paying debts part any game would be comparable in operation costs to any other game. The only difference would be the amount of ongoing development you want to support and the more subs you have the cheaper that cost would be.
So I don't think a game based on a pay to play model has much latitude in costs.
---
Ethion