Originally posted by reploidx So no one answered the question. What are they supposed to do? How are they supposed to test their cash shop to make it work?
Honest Open Beta tests let people spend money, but at launch the server is wiped and the money is credited back to the account to be used on the "live" server.
The question though becomes,how is having an open beta and allowing cash shop purchases dishonest if it carries over to live?That's not dishonest in any way,in my eyes.They're using it to test server stability,tweaks and test the cash shop.Even if the testing is minimal it's still there.
I think companies are tired of us the gamer,complaining about botched releases and server downtime at launch.It's like they just can't win.They either launch and catch bs cause of server instability and such.Or they use an open beta and catch bs saying they're dishonest or it's not really a test.
This is 2013 and I think the definition's have changed as far as beta/open beta/launch.
well there are suckers born everyday, I'm sure they are happy to have you
/cheers
How does that make him a sucker though? In a way this is true. You make a launch and it's buggy, it's a fail launch and no one wants your game. You call it a beta test and everything is botched, they call it a fail beta and still say it's going to be fail when it launches. For companies now it seems like a lose/lose.
If a launch is "buggy" it is always because one or more of the following:
Beta used as a marketing/advertisement tool instead of a testing one
Moving a beta build into live that had significant unresolved and reported issues in lieu of resolving in a consecutive build
Having unrealistic deadlines on concept/design/testing/re-design phases
Having an understaffed QA dept.
Unrealistic server/client load projections
poor market research
poor metrics data interpretation
Would you care to explain pretty much every buggy launch since and including WoW?Games that didn't take money in open beta.
English please
I guess you don't speak common sense.
Please, no arguments, we are discussing and you two are getting off subject a bit. Pretty much all F2P games from foreign over seas companies where buggy from open to launch (even during Open) that took in money during Open. Allods is one that comes to mind that no-one really seemed to care that they took money while it was in Open.
Originally posted by reploidx So no one answered the question. What are they supposed to do? How are they supposed to test their cash shop to make it work?
Honest Open Beta tests let people spend money, but at launch the server is wiped and the money is credited back to the account to be used on the "live" server.
The question though becomes,how is having an open beta and allowing cash shop purchases dishonest if it carries over to live?That's not dishonest in any way,in my eyes.They're using it to test server stability,tweaks and test the cash shop.Even if the testing is minimal it's still there.
I think companies are tired of us the gamer,complaining about botched releases and server downtime at launch.It's like they just can't win.They either launch and catch bs cause of server instability and such.Or they use an open beta and catch bs saying they're dishonest or it's not really a test.
This is 2013 and I think the definition's have changed as far as beta/open beta/launch.
well there are suckers born everyday, I'm sure they are happy to have you
/cheers
How does that make him a sucker though? In a way this is true. You make a launch and it's buggy, it's a fail launch and no one wants your game. You call it a beta test and everything is botched, they call it a fail beta and still say it's going to be fail when it launches. For companies now it seems like a lose/lose.
If a launch is "buggy" it is always because one or more of the following:
Beta used as a marketing/advertisement tool instead of a testing one
Moving a beta build into live that had significant unresolved and reported issues in lieu of resolving in a consecutive build
Having unrealistic deadlines on concept/design/testing/re-design phases
Having an understaffed QA dept.
Unrealistic server/client load projections
poor market research
poor metrics data interpretation
I never played it, but wasn't WoW's launch super buggy and all around bad? And look at it now?! Every launch will either be bad or good, but it doesn't mean it's a terrible game, it was either rushed or thought it was good until something internally blew up.
Misconception,whilst it was not bug free ,as no game MMORPG or otherwise is,the majority of WoW's problems came from an unprecedented and totally unpredictable demand.
Blizzard based it predictions for launch population on previous MMORPGs,there was a modest amount of hype behind WoW but nothing compared to the hype for console games or single player PC games at the time.MMORPGs were very niche back then and their predictions reflect that.
Their predicitons however were dead wrong demand for WoW was unprecedented and they had trouble keeping retailers supplied with boxes for the first month(remember this was before digital sales were popular or available in WoW's case)
So yes why WoW had a famously rocky launch they had very valid excuses and worked hard to resolve the issues as quick as possible.No other developer has had that excuse since.
Originally posted by reploidx So no one answered the question. What are they supposed to do? How are they supposed to test their cash shop to make it work?
Honest Open Beta tests let people spend money, but at launch the server is wiped and the money is credited back to the account to be used on the "live" server.
The question though becomes,how is having an open beta and allowing cash shop purchases dishonest if it carries over to live?That's not dishonest in any way,in my eyes.They're using it to test server stability,tweaks and test the cash shop.Even if the testing is minimal it's still there.
I think companies are tired of us the gamer,complaining about botched releases and server downtime at launch.It's like they just can't win.They either launch and catch bs cause of server instability and such.Or they use an open beta and catch bs saying they're dishonest or it's not really a test.
This is 2013 and I think the definition's have changed as far as beta/open beta/launch.
well there are suckers born everyday, I'm sure they are happy to have you
/cheers
How does that make him a sucker though? In a way this is true. You make a launch and it's buggy, it's a fail launch and no one wants your game. You call it a beta test and everything is botched, they call it a fail beta and still say it's going to be fail when it launches. For companies now it seems like a lose/lose.
If a launch is "buggy" it is always because one or more of the following:
Beta used as a marketing/advertisement tool instead of a testing one
Moving a beta build into live that had significant unresolved and reported issues in lieu of resolving in a consecutive build
Having unrealistic deadlines on concept/design/testing/re-design phases
Having an understaffed QA dept.
Unrealistic server/client load projections
poor market research
poor metrics data interpretation
Would you care to explain pretty much every buggy launch since and including WoW?Games that didn't take money in open beta.
English please
I guess you don't speak common sense.
Ok I will try to decipher, I assume you asking why WoW was successful even though it had a somewhat buggy launch? if so
there is a reason I included market research and metrics data interpretation in the list. At the time of wows release It' s services, gameplay, accessibility, and scope were directly in-line with what the market at the time wanted compared to it's then competitors. And while it did have it's share of bugs Blizzard correctly identified via metrics data what were "show stopper" bugs for the consumer, which ones the consumer would put up with for a limited time, and which ones they could place on the back burner.
If you truly want to use an example of a game that had a really bad launch that later became(arguably) the industries 2nd leading mmo look to EVE. While they screwed up much of the launch they learned very quickly and utilized metrics data intelligently.
If that's not what your asking please re-phrase the question.
Open beta used to mean the game was 80-90% finished but in need of mass testing and in a state not really ready for sale. Nowdays a lot of games are charging money in Open Beta which in my opinion makes the game release, not open beta.
All I think the community wants is honesty & transparency, don't call it open beta if you are charging for it, instead call it release & be open with your roadmap of future changes & additions & absolutely do not hide from problems or negative feedback behind your "open beta" shield.
Now if you as a developer don't have a clear roadmap & aren't willing to commit to it, share it & call your game release simply don't charge money for it.
Originally posted by reploidx So no one answered the question. What are they supposed to do? How are they supposed to test their cash shop to make it work?
Honest Open Beta tests let people spend money, but at launch the server is wiped and the money is credited back to the account to be used on the "live" server.
The question though becomes,how is having an open beta and allowing cash shop purchases dishonest if it carries over to live?That's not dishonest in any way,in my eyes.They're using it to test server stability,tweaks and test the cash shop.Even if the testing is minimal it's still there.
I think companies are tired of us the gamer,complaining about botched releases and server downtime at launch.It's like they just can't win.They either launch and catch bs cause of server instability and such.Or they use an open beta and catch bs saying they're dishonest or it's not really a test.
This is 2013 and I think the definition's have changed as far as beta/open beta/launch.
well there are suckers born everyday, I'm sure they are happy to have you
/cheers
How does that make him a sucker though? In a way this is true. You make a launch and it's buggy, it's a fail launch and no one wants your game. You call it a beta test and everything is botched, they call it a fail beta and still say it's going to be fail when it launches. For companies now it seems like a lose/lose.
If a launch is "buggy" it is always because one or more of the following:
Beta used as a marketing/advertisement tool instead of a testing one
Moving a beta build into live that had significant unresolved and reported issues in lieu of resolving in a consecutive build
Having unrealistic deadlines on concept/design/testing/re-design phases
Having an understaffed QA dept.
Unrealistic server/client load projections
poor market research
poor metrics data interpretation
I never played it, but wasn't WoW's launch super buggy and all around bad? And look at it now?! Every launch will either be bad or good, but it doesn't mean it's a terrible game, it was either rushed or thought it was good until something internally blew up.
Misconception,whilst it was not bug free ,as no game MMORPG or otherwise is,the majority of WoW's problems came from an unprecedented and totally unpredictable demand.
Blizzard based it predictions for launch population on previous MMORPGs,there was a modest amount of hype behind WoW but nothing compared to the hype for console games or single player PC games at the time.MMORPGs were very niche back then and their predictions reflect that.
Their predicitons however were dead wrong demand for WoW was unprecedented and they had trouble keeping retailers supplied with boxes for the first month(remember this was before digital sales were popular or available in WoW's case)
So yes why WoW had a famously rocky launch they had very valid excuses and worked hard to resolve the issues as quick as possible.No other developer has had that excuse since.
Thank you for this, I knew it had a "bad launch" but I didn't know the full reason.
giving people a lot of free AD only tested what they used that on and not real money. But you can still say the game is launched and lower or raise item zen prices for specials and such..cash shops do i all the time in other games to answer questions regarding "if it was a tad cheaper would more people go for it" and then eventually that item just becomes cheaper.
Originally posted by TheCrow2k Open beta used to mean the game was 80-90% finished but in need of mass testing and in a state not really ready for sale. Nowdays a lot of games are charging money in Open Beta which in my opinion makes the game release, not open beta. All I think the community wants is honesty & transparency, don't call it open beta if you are charging for it, instead call it release & be open with your roadmap of future changes & additions & absolutely do not hide from problems or negative feedback behind your "open beta" shield. Now if you as a developer don't have a clear roadmap & aren't willing to commit to it, share it & call your game release simply don't charge money for it. Bottom line be honest & call a spade a spade.
So would this definition mean that GW2 launched since there really wasn't an Open Beta for it, but still made you pay to play in it during their betas?
It has already been proven that F2P games cost more in the long run than monthly subscription games. As far as the original posters complaint about being a poor gamer. that my friend sounds like a personal problem. Get a better job or get a second job.
A lot of the issues with F2P games is that they are not truly F2P only a certain amount of the game is available to the player through basic options/quests/gameplay/gear. I know for a fact Eq2 is one of the bigger Offenders in this trick to force a person to pay for the Game. BUt I find paying the $15 a month you get so much more in the game than you ever could with doing Freemium or playing F2P.
I have no problem paying for a game monthly $15 if it has good content, good pvp, lore including a good player population etc. Then again I got a decent job with a good income to "splurge" on what i consider fun and entertaining.
Every F2P game I have seen or play, I found that it is far better to actually pay the monthly sub if can afford it than take the game piecemeal which can quickly add up faster than you would ever pay for the monthly subscription. IN fact these companies (Perfect world being notorious for that, including Cryptic being a mild offender) are hoping you keep to the F2P model as they get far more out of you than if you played $15 month I don't fall for it.
While I think NeverWinter has its own charm, If i were to play it I would be paying monthly to get all the content. But because it has F2P cash shop it also puts any player at a disadvantage to another player who has deep pockets and they will get the top gear regardless of F2P or monthly Sub. Hell even Gw2 does this which is often annoying. But in the end you make the choice on what you want to play, I just find in my own opinion I get the most out of my game when paying for a monthly sub. otherwise your just getting sharked.
3.4ghz Phenom II X4 965, 8GB PC12800 DDR3 GSKILL, EVGA 560GTX 2GB OC, 640GB HD SATA II, BFG 1000WATT PSU. MSI NF980-G65 TRI-SLI MOBO.
Originally posted by TheCrow2k Open beta used to mean the game was 80-90% finished but in need of mass testing and in a state not really ready for sale. Nowdays a lot of games are charging money in Open Beta which in my opinion makes the game release, not open beta. All I think the community wants is honesty & transparency, don't call it open beta if you are charging for it, instead call it release & be open with your roadmap of future changes & additions & absolutely do not hide from problems or negative feedback behind your "open beta" shield. Now if you as a developer don't have a clear roadmap & aren't willing to commit to it, share it & call your game release simply don't charge money for it. Bottom line be honest & call a spade a spade.
So would this definition mean that GW2 launched since there really wasn't an Open Beta for it, but still made you pay to play in it during their betas?
It launched the moment it charged for the service/box as it is then a commercial transaction.
So yes why WoW had a famously rocky launch they had very valid excuses and worked hard to resolve the issues as quick as possible.No other developer has had that excuse since.
Lots of devs had this problem...difference is that after the hype went down people left the other games and servers were shut down and people were merged. WoW on the other hand , the population steadily increased..until now.
So yes why WoW had a famously rocky launch they had very valid excuses and worked hard to resolve the issues as quick as possible.No other developer has had that excuse since.
Lots of devs had this problem...difference is that after the hype went down people left the other games and servers were shut down and people were merged. WoW on the other hand , the population steadily increased..until now.
I would not say a lot but some have had similar problems,like say War,but not to nearly the same extent.However they had waht happened with WoW as a guidlline on how to handle it and make backup plans.Any failure to do so is squarely on the devs shoulders.
Originally posted by reploidx So no one answered the question. What are they supposed to do? How are they supposed to test their cash shop to make it work?
Honest Open Beta tests let people spend money, but at launch the server is wiped and the money is credited back to the account to be used on the "live" server.
The question though becomes,how is having an open beta and allowing cash shop purchases dishonest if it carries over to live?That's not dishonest in any way,in my eyes.They're using it to test server stability,tweaks and test the cash shop.Even if the testing is minimal it's still there.
I think companies are tired of us the gamer,complaining about botched releases and server downtime at launch.It's like they just can't win.They either launch and catch bs cause of server instability and such.Or they use an open beta and catch bs saying they're dishonest or it's not really a test.
This is 2013 and I think the definition's have changed as far as beta/open beta/launch.
well there are suckers born everyday, I'm sure they are happy to have you
/cheers
How does that make him a sucker though? In a way this is true. You make a launch and it's buggy, it's a fail launch and no one wants your game. You call it a beta test and everything is botched, they call it a fail beta and still say it's going to be fail when it launches. For companies now it seems like a lose/lose.
If a launch is "buggy" it is always because one or more of the following:
Beta used as a marketing/advertisement tool instead of a testing one
Moving a beta build into live that had significant unresolved and reported issues in lieu of resolving in a consecutive build
Having unrealistic deadlines on concept/design/testing/re-design phases
Having an understaffed QA dept.
Unrealistic server/client load projections
poor market research
poor metrics data interpretation
Would you care to explain pretty much every buggy launch since and including WoW?Games that didn't take money in open beta.
English please
I guess you don't speak common sense.
Ok I will try to decipher, I assume you asking why WoW was successful even though it had a somewhat buggy launch? if so
there is a reason I included market research and metrics data interpretation in the list. At the time of wows release It' s services, gameplay, accessibility, and scope were directly in-line with what the market at the time wanted compared to it's then competitors. And while it did have it's share of bugs Blizzard correctly identified via metrics data what were "show stopper" bugs for the consumer, which ones the consumer would put up with for a limited time, and which ones they could place on the back burner.
If you truly want to use an example of a game that had a really bad launch that later became(arguably) the industries 2nd leading mmo look to EVE. While they screwed up much of the launch they learned very quickly and utilized metrics data intelligently.
If that's not what your asking please re-phrase the question.
You're trying to make it seem that WoW did so well because it wasn't buggy.It's funny that you didn't mention WoW in the previous post,but now do,how convenient.You mad a super generalization and then said (english please?)WoW was buggy at release and was witnessed by people in my guild.
That's just WoW though,what about War?The extremely buggy public quest's.AoC there were bug's with thing's not showing in inventory.These are games that didn't have a paid open beta carryover/cash shop,but still had bug's.
This is why having an open beta with purchases carrying over to live,is no different than what the ptp games did with launch before.It's just earlier.
Ptp launch = bugs and server problems.
Ftp open beta = bugs/server problems and a chance to work it all out for launch!!
Some day I'm going to put a sword through your eye and out the back of your skull!
So yes why WoW had a famously rocky launch they had very valid excuses and worked hard to resolve the issues as quick as possible.No other developer has had that excuse since.
Lots of devs had this problem...difference is that after the hype went down people left the other games and servers were shut down and people were merged. WoW on the other hand , the population steadily increased..until now.
That's what understanding your market and having a large QA team to track down reported bugs will do for you instead of giving devs the triple hat of content design/bug tracking/bug fixing which seems to be the standard these days.
Originally posted by TheCrow2k Open beta used to mean the game was 80-90% finished but in need of mass testing and in a state not really ready for sale. Nowdays a lot of games are charging money in Open Beta which in my opinion makes the game release, not open beta. All I think the community wants is honesty & transparency, don't call it open beta if you are charging for it, instead call it release & be open with your roadmap of future changes & additions & absolutely do not hide from problems or negative feedback behind your "open beta" shield. Now if you as a developer don't have a clear roadmap & aren't willing to commit to it, share it & call your game release simply don't charge money for it. Bottom line be honest & call a spade a spade.
I couldn't agree more. You pretty much said, what I was thinking in a nutshell .
Originally posted by reploidx So no one answered the question. What are they supposed to do? How are they supposed to test their cash shop to make it work?
Honest Open Beta tests let people spend money, but at launch the server is wiped and the money is credited back to the account to be used on the "live" server.
The question though becomes,how is having an open beta and allowing cash shop purchases dishonest if it carries over to live?That's not dishonest in any way,in my eyes.They're using it to test server stability,tweaks and test the cash shop.Even if the testing is minimal it's still there.
I think companies are tired of us the gamer,complaining about botched releases and server downtime at launch.It's like they just can't win.They either launch and catch bs cause of server instability and such.Or they use an open beta and catch bs saying they're dishonest or it's not really a test.
This is 2013 and I think the definition's have changed as far as beta/open beta/launch.
well there are suckers born everyday, I'm sure they are happy to have you
/cheers
How does that make him a sucker though? In a way this is true. You make a launch and it's buggy, it's a fail launch and no one wants your game. You call it a beta test and everything is botched, they call it a fail beta and still say it's going to be fail when it launches. For companies now it seems like a lose/lose.
If a launch is "buggy" it is always because one or more of the following:
Beta used as a marketing/advertisement tool instead of a testing one
Moving a beta build into live that had significant unresolved and reported issues in lieu of resolving in a consecutive build
Having unrealistic deadlines on concept/design/testing/re-design phases
Having an understaffed QA dept.
Unrealistic server/client load projections
poor market research
poor metrics data interpretation
Would you care to explain pretty much every buggy launch since and including WoW?Games that didn't take money in open beta.
English please
I guess you don't speak common sense.
Ok I will try to decipher, I assume you asking why WoW was successful even though it had a somewhat buggy launch? if so
there is a reason I included market research and metrics data interpretation in the list. At the time of wows release It' s services, gameplay, accessibility, and scope were directly in-line with what the market at the time wanted compared to it's then competitors. And while it did have it's share of bugs Blizzard correctly identified via metrics data what were "show stopper" bugs for the consumer, which ones the consumer would put up with for a limited time, and which ones they could place on the back burner.
If you truly want to use an example of a game that had a really bad launch that later became(arguably) the industries 2nd leading mmo look to EVE. While they screwed up much of the launch they learned very quickly and utilized metrics data intelligently.
If that's not what your asking please re-phrase the question.
You're trying to make it seem that WoW did so well because it wasn't buggy.It's funny that you didn't mention WoW in the previous post,but now do,how convenient.You mad a super generalization and then said (english please?)WoW was buggy at release and was witnessed by people in my guild.
That's just WoW though,what about War?The extremely buggy public quest's.AoC there were bug's with thing's not showing in inventory.These are games that didn't have a paid open beta carryover/cash shop,but still had bug's.
This is why having an open beta with purchases carrying over to live,is no different than what the ptp games did with launch before.It's just earlier.
Ptp launch = bugs and server problems.
Ftp open beta = bugs/server problems and a chance to work it all out for launch!!
reading comprehension, try it:
I expressly said WOW was buggy and I expressly said that I didn't understand your question but would try to answer. But since you are looking for an argument find someone else /done
Originally posted by reploidx So no one answered the question. What are they supposed to do? How are they supposed to test their cash shop to make it work?
Honest Open Beta tests let people spend money, but at launch the server is wiped and the money is credited back to the account to be used on the "live" server.
The question though becomes,how is having an open beta and allowing cash shop purchases dishonest if it carries over to live?That's not dishonest in any way,in my eyes.They're using it to test server stability,tweaks and test the cash shop.Even if the testing is minimal it's still there.
I think companies are tired of us the gamer,complaining about botched releases and server downtime at launch.It's like they just can't win.They either launch and catch bs cause of server instability and such.Or they use an open beta and catch bs saying they're dishonest or it's not really a test.
This is 2013 and I think the definition's have changed as far as beta/open beta/launch.
well there are suckers born everyday, I'm sure they are happy to have you
/cheers
How does that make him a sucker though? In a way this is true. You make a launch and it's buggy, it's a fail launch and no one wants your game. You call it a beta test and everything is botched, they call it a fail beta and still say it's going to be fail when it launches. For companies now it seems like a lose/lose.
If a launch is "buggy" it is always because one or more of the following:
Beta used as a marketing/advertisement tool instead of a testing one
Moving a beta build into live that had significant unresolved and reported issues in lieu of resolving in a consecutive build
Having unrealistic deadlines on concept/design/testing/re-design phases
Having an understaffed QA dept.
Unrealistic server/client load projections
poor market research
poor metrics data interpretation
I never played it, but wasn't WoW's launch super buggy and all around bad? And look at it now?! Every launch will either be bad or good, but it doesn't mean it's a terrible game, it was either rushed or thought it was good until something internally blew up.
Misconception,whilst it was not bug free ,as no game MMORPG or otherwise is,the majority of WoW's problems came from an unprecedented and totally unpredictable demand.
Blizzard based it predictions for launch population on previous MMORPGs,there was a modest amount of hype behind WoW but nothing compared to the hype for console games or single player PC games at the time.MMORPGs were very niche back then and their predictions reflect that.
Their predicitons however were dead wrong demand for WoW was unprecedented and they had trouble keeping retailers supplied with boxes for the first month(remember this was before digital sales were popular or available in WoW's case)
So yes why WoW had a famously rocky launch they had very valid excuses and worked hard to resolve the issues as quick as possible.No other developer has had that excuse since.
I remember lining up overnight to buy the 2 dozen boxes for my group/guild......
And the guys behind me went home empty hands because I bought them all.......
Oh and I could have sold them for profit if not for my group (of real life friends)....
No one knew back then that WoW would have millionS of players and have boxes sold out all over north america......
F2P games don't have much to fear from player criticism during their so-called "open beta" phases. It's free to play, so hundreds of thousands of players will try it anyway, regardless of how bad the game's reputation is.
Selling "Founder's Packs" with "Guaranteed Early Access" to the Open Beta is the first move.
Announcing the start of Open Beta with great fanfare and promotions gets the first wave of potential Cash Shop customers in. Doesn't matter that the game is rough and servers are shaky, the Cash Shop works 100% !
All criticism can be deflected with "But it's only BETA !"
Then you announce warnings that the sale of "Founder's Packs" will soon be ending, so get your awesome deal NOW !
Then the "Official Launch" is timed for when the game is showing signs of losing the initial momentum, because the "launch" can be used to generate hype and game site reviews and all sorts of publicity.
If someone has a weak beta experience, they're gone.
Out of 100 players who have a weak beta experience I bet less than 10 are coming back to try the game again.
Few players really care about whether someone "deflects" their criticism with "it's only beta" because if they're not excited by the game they're gone and playing something else instead.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It has already been proven that F2P games cost more in the long run than monthly subscription games. As far as the original posters complaint about being a poor gamer. that my friend sounds like a personal problem. Get a better job or get a second job.
A lot of the issues with F2P games is that they are not truly F2P only a certain amount of the game is available to the player through basic options/quests/gameplay/gear. I know for a fact Eq2 is one of the bigger Offenders in this trick to force a person to pay for the Game. BUt I find paying the $15 a month you get so much more in the game than you ever could with doing Freemium or playing F2P.
I have no problem paying for a game monthly $15 if it has good content, good pvp, lore including a good player population etc. Then again I got a decent job with a good income to "splurge" on what i consider fun and entertaining.
Every F2P game I have seen or play, I found that it is far better to actually pay the monthly sub if can afford it than take the game piecemeal which can quickly add up faster than you would ever pay for the monthly subscription. IN fact these companies (Perfect world being notorious for that, including Cryptic being a mild offender) are hoping you keep to the F2P model as they get far more out of you than if you played $15 month I don't fall for it.
While I think NeverWinter has its own charm, If i were to play it I would be paying monthly to get all the content. But because it has F2P cash shop it also puts any player at a disadvantage to another player who has deep pockets and they will get the top gear regardless of F2P or monthly Sub. Hell even Gw2 does this which is often annoying. But in the end you make the choice on what you want to play, I just find in my own opinion I get the most out of my game when paying for a monthly sub. otherwise your just getting sharked.
Neverwinter gives you everything though, as does TERA and now EQ2 has given up a ton of it's pay walls. DDO/Lotro still have content behind a pay wall though. But how are you disadvantaged in the long run on something like neverwinter. The game isn't strictly PvP, but it does have it of course. You can still use their in-game currency to buy their real money currency, so if there is some sort of disadvantage you can still get it in game if you wish to casually play it. In the early 2000s, what you are describing was the problem, each game that was f2p had a huge cash sink, but now as the times are changing, you are getting games that have minimal payments to play the game (rift and Tera being two good examples)
Originally posted by MyBoot If you pay any money for anything during open beta's that's your choice, no one is holding a gun to your head and making you pay ?
This. I've payed money, but with how some of these people are explaining things so far i've been: duped, swindled and cheated out of money, but i received my item as soon as i got it.
Open Beta is for testing, including testing the cash shop. But if it is on the live server and isn't wiped, then it's a launch.
We have to remember that with Neverwinter, they are planning on making the three servers into one mega server. So technically what you are saying that are Beta testing the cash shop because these are not the live servers.
Originally posted by reploidx So no one answered the question. What are they supposed to do? How are they supposed to test their cash shop to make it work?
Honest Open Beta tests let people spend money, but at launch the server is wiped and the money is credited back to the account to be used on the "live" server.
The question though becomes,how is having an open beta and allowing cash shop purchases dishonest if it carries over to live?That's not dishonest in any way,in my eyes.They're using it to test server stability,tweaks and test the cash shop.Even if the testing is minimal it's still there.
I think companies are tired of us the gamer,complaining about botched releases and server downtime at launch.It's like they just can't win.They either launch and catch bs cause of server instability and such.Or they use an open beta and catch bs saying they're dishonest or it's not really a test.
This is 2013 and I think the definition's have changed as far as beta/open beta/launch.
well there are suckers born everyday, I'm sure they are happy to have you
/cheers
How does that make him a sucker though? In a way this is true. You make a launch and it's buggy, it's a fail launch and no one wants your game. You call it a beta test and everything is botched, they call it a fail beta and still say it's going to be fail when it launches. For companies now it seems like a lose/lose.
If a launch is "buggy" it is always because one or more of the following:
Beta used as a marketing/advertisement tool instead of a testing one
Moving a beta build into live that had significant unresolved and reported issues in lieu of resolving in a consecutive build
Having unrealistic deadlines on concept/design/testing/re-design phases
Having an understaffed QA dept.
Unrealistic server/client load projections
poor market research
poor metrics data interpretation
Would you care to explain pretty much every buggy launch since and including WoW?Games that didn't take money in open beta.
English please
I guess you don't speak common sense.
Ok I will try to decipher, I assume you asking why WoW was successful even though it had a somewhat buggy launch? if so
there is a reason I included market research and metrics data interpretation in the list. At the time of wows release It' s services, gameplay, accessibility, and scope were directly in-line with what the market at the time wanted compared to it's then competitors. And while it did have it's share of bugs Blizzard correctly identified via metrics data what were "show stopper" bugs for the consumer, which ones the consumer would put up with for a limited time, and which ones they could place on the back burner.
If you truly want to use an example of a game that had a really bad launch that later became(arguably) the industries 2nd leading mmo look to EVE. While they screwed up much of the launch they learned very quickly and utilized metrics data intelligently.
If that's not what your asking please re-phrase the question.
You're trying to make it seem that WoW did so well because it wasn't buggy.It's funny that you didn't mention WoW in the previous post,but now do,how convenient.You mad a super generalization and then said (english please?)WoW was buggy at release and was witnessed by people in my guild.
That's just WoW though,what about War?The extremely buggy public quest's.AoC there were bug's with thing's not showing in inventory.These are games that didn't have a paid open beta carryover/cash shop,but still had bug's.
This is why having an open beta with purchases carrying over to live,is no different than what the ptp games did with launch before.It's just earlier.
Ptp launch = bugs and server problems.
Ftp open beta = bugs/server problems and a chance to work it all out for launch!!
reading comprehension, try it:
I expressly said WOW was buggy and I expressly said that I didn't understand your question but would try to answer. But since you are looking for an argument find someone else /done
I'm talking about the post before that,where you said english please and than was saying I assume you're talking about WoW in the next,wth are you purposely ignoring things?You understood but are now just blabbering I guess?
You ignore the main in order to argue.WoW,War,Aoc all had bug's and offered no open beta cash shop.So why are the ftp games now held to that lvl?Like you can't take money for open beta even though that may mean it's less buggy and more stable at launch?
Some day I'm going to put a sword through your eye and out the back of your skull!
F2P games don't have much to fear from player criticism during their so-called "open beta" phases. It's free to play, so hundreds of thousands of players will try it anyway, regardless of how bad the game's reputation is.
Selling "Founder's Packs" with "Guaranteed Early Access" to the Open Beta is the first move.
Announcing the start of Open Beta with great fanfare and promotions gets the first wave of potential Cash Shop customers in. Doesn't matter that the game is rough and servers are shaky, the Cash Shop works 100% !
All criticism can be deflected with "But it's only BETA !"
Then you announce warnings that the sale of "Founder's Packs" will soon be ending, so get your awesome deal NOW !
Then the "Official Launch" is timed for when the game is showing signs of losing the initial momentum, because the "launch" can be used to generate hype and game site reviews and all sorts of publicity.
If someone has a weak beta experience, they're gone.
Out of 100 players who have a weak beta experience I bet less than 10 are coming back to try the game again.
Few players really care about whether someone "deflects" their criticism with "it's only beta" because if they're not excited by the game they're gone and playing something else instead.
yup and that's the whole reason for the "pay for beta" concept, if you can get potential players/payers monetarily invested before they determine quality of content, they have a higher likely hood of staying and even the ones who leave got fleeced. Saves on content design if they already have their pound of flesh. PWE, Zynga are past masters of the concept
Few players really care about whether someone "deflects" their criticism with "it's only beta" because if they're not excited by the game they're gone and playing something else instead.
This.
With so many games out there, there is little reason to be tolerant of mistakes and non-fun games.
Comments
Please, no arguments, we are discussing and you two are getting off subject a bit. Pretty much all F2P games from foreign over seas companies where buggy from open to launch (even during Open) that took in money during Open. Allods is one that comes to mind that no-one really seemed to care that they took money while it was in Open.
Misconception,whilst it was not bug free ,as no game MMORPG or otherwise is,the majority of WoW's problems came from an unprecedented and totally unpredictable demand.
Blizzard based it predictions for launch population on previous MMORPGs,there was a modest amount of hype behind WoW but nothing compared to the hype for console games or single player PC games at the time.MMORPGs were very niche back then and their predictions reflect that.
Their predicitons however were dead wrong demand for WoW was unprecedented and they had trouble keeping retailers supplied with boxes for the first month(remember this was before digital sales were popular or available in WoW's case)
So yes why WoW had a famously rocky launch they had very valid excuses and worked hard to resolve the issues as quick as possible.No other developer has had that excuse since.
Ok I will try to decipher, I assume you asking why WoW was successful even though it had a somewhat buggy launch? if so
there is a reason I included market research and metrics data interpretation in the list. At the time of wows release It' s services, gameplay, accessibility, and scope were directly in-line with what the market at the time wanted compared to it's then competitors. And while it did have it's share of bugs Blizzard correctly identified via metrics data what were "show stopper" bugs for the consumer, which ones the consumer would put up with for a limited time, and which ones they could place on the back burner.
If you truly want to use an example of a game that had a really bad launch that later became(arguably) the industries 2nd leading mmo look to EVE. While they screwed up much of the launch they learned very quickly and utilized metrics data intelligently.
If that's not what your asking please re-phrase the question.
All I think the community wants is honesty & transparency, don't call it open beta if you are charging for it, instead call it release & be open with your roadmap of future changes & additions & absolutely do not hide from problems or negative feedback behind your "open beta" shield.
Now if you as a developer don't have a clear roadmap & aren't willing to commit to it, share it & call your game release simply don't charge money for it.
Bottom line be honest & call a spade a spade.
Thank you for this, I knew it had a "bad launch" but I didn't know the full reason.
So would this definition mean that GW2 launched since there really wasn't an Open Beta for it, but still made you pay to play in it during their betas?
It has already been proven that F2P games cost more in the long run than monthly subscription games. As far as the original posters complaint about being a poor gamer. that my friend sounds like a personal problem. Get a better job or get a second job.
A lot of the issues with F2P games is that they are not truly F2P only a certain amount of the game is available to the player through basic options/quests/gameplay/gear. I know for a fact Eq2 is one of the bigger Offenders in this trick to force a person to pay for the Game. BUt I find paying the $15 a month you get so much more in the game than you ever could with doing Freemium or playing F2P.
I have no problem paying for a game monthly $15 if it has good content, good pvp, lore including a good player population etc. Then again I got a decent job with a good income to "splurge" on what i consider fun and entertaining.
Every F2P game I have seen or play, I found that it is far better to actually pay the monthly sub if can afford it than take the game piecemeal which can quickly add up faster than you would ever pay for the monthly subscription. IN fact these companies (Perfect world being notorious for that, including Cryptic being a mild offender) are hoping you keep to the F2P model as they get far more out of you than if you played $15 month I don't fall for it.
While I think NeverWinter has its own charm, If i were to play it I would be paying monthly to get all the content. But because it has F2P cash shop it also puts any player at a disadvantage to another player who has deep pockets and they will get the top gear regardless of F2P or monthly Sub. Hell even Gw2 does this which is often annoying. But in the end you make the choice on what you want to play, I just find in my own opinion I get the most out of my game when paying for a monthly sub. otherwise your just getting sharked.
3.4ghz Phenom II X4 965, 8GB PC12800 DDR3 GSKILL, EVGA 560GTX 2GB OC, 640GB HD SATA II, BFG 1000WATT PSU. MSI NF980-G65 TRI-SLI MOBO.
It launched the moment it charged for the service/box as it is then a commercial transaction.
Lots of devs had this problem...difference is that after the hype went down people left the other games and servers were shut down and people were merged. WoW on the other hand , the population steadily increased..until now.
I would not say a lot but some have had similar problems,like say War,but not to nearly the same extent.However they had waht happened with WoW as a guidlline on how to handle it and make backup plans.Any failure to do so is squarely on the devs shoulders.
You're trying to make it seem that WoW did so well because it wasn't buggy.It's funny that you didn't mention WoW in the previous post,but now do,how convenient.You mad a super generalization and then said (english please?)WoW was buggy at release and was witnessed by people in my guild.
That's just WoW though,what about War?The extremely buggy public quest's.AoC there were bug's with thing's not showing in inventory.These are games that didn't have a paid open beta carryover/cash shop,but still had bug's.
This is why having an open beta with purchases carrying over to live,is no different than what the ptp games did with launch before.It's just earlier.
Ptp launch = bugs and server problems.
Ftp open beta = bugs/server problems and a chance to work it all out for launch!!
Some day I'm going to put a sword through your eye and out the back of your skull!
Arya Stark
That's what understanding your market and having a large QA team to track down reported bugs will do for you instead of giving devs the triple hat of content design/bug tracking/bug fixing which seems to be the standard these days.
I couldn't agree more. You pretty much said, what I was thinking in a nutshell .
reading comprehension, try it:
I expressly said WOW was buggy and I expressly said that I didn't understand your question but would try to answer. But since you are looking for an argument find someone else /done
I remember lining up overnight to buy the 2 dozen boxes for my group/guild......
And the guys behind me went home empty hands because I bought them all.......
Oh and I could have sold them for profit if not for my group (of real life friends)....
No one knew back then that WoW would have millionS of players and have boxes sold out all over north america......
This.
Open Beta is for testing, including testing the cash shop. But if it is on the live server and isn't wiped, then it's a launch.
If someone has a weak beta experience, they're gone.
Out of 100 players who have a weak beta experience I bet less than 10 are coming back to try the game again.
Few players really care about whether someone "deflects" their criticism with "it's only beta" because if they're not excited by the game they're gone and playing something else instead.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Neverwinter gives you everything though, as does TERA and now EQ2 has given up a ton of it's pay walls. DDO/Lotro still have content behind a pay wall though. But how are you disadvantaged in the long run on something like neverwinter. The game isn't strictly PvP, but it does have it of course. You can still use their in-game currency to buy their real money currency, so if there is some sort of disadvantage you can still get it in game if you wish to casually play it. In the early 2000s, what you are describing was the problem, each game that was f2p had a huge cash sink, but now as the times are changing, you are getting games that have minimal payments to play the game (rift and Tera being two good examples)
This. I've payed money, but with how some of these people are explaining things so far i've been: duped, swindled and cheated out of money, but i received my item as soon as i got it.
We have to remember that with Neverwinter, they are planning on making the three servers into one mega server. So technically what you are saying that are Beta testing the cash shop because these are not the live servers.
I'm talking about the post before that,where you said english please and than was saying I assume you're talking about WoW in the next,wth are you purposely ignoring things?You understood but are now just blabbering I guess?
You ignore the main in order to argue.WoW,War,Aoc all had bug's and offered no open beta cash shop.So why are the ftp games now held to that lvl?Like you can't take money for open beta even though that may mean it's less buggy and more stable at launch?
Some day I'm going to put a sword through your eye and out the back of your skull!
Arya Stark
yup and that's the whole reason for the "pay for beta" concept, if you can get potential players/payers monetarily invested before they determine quality of content, they have a higher likely hood of staying and even the ones who leave got fleeced. Saves on content design if they already have their pound of flesh. PWE, Zynga are past masters of the concept
This.
With so many games out there, there is little reason to be tolerant of mistakes and non-fun games.