Kickstarters - Are something entirely different. You aren't actualy BUYING a product. You are DONATING funds to try to help someone make a product that you think is worthwhile getting made and would have trouble finding funding through more traditional routes.
Yes. These are much much worse than paying to get into a beta because you don't even know you'll even see a finished product.
If you are going into them with the expectation that you are BUYING something then you should avoid them because you don't understand the concept behind them. They are more like DONATING some money to a kid who you think has talent so that he can go out and buy some paint and some brushes and enroll in art school. If you expect anything for your money other then the hope that the kid is honest and will TRY to do what he said he would with the money then you have the wrong expectations.
Imagine this would be business practice with any other product. Like cars.
Customer: "Hello, I want to buy a new car!"
Salesman: "Good, I have a new car under development, just give me 80 grand."
Customer: "Hm, ok, but.. what sort of car is it?"
Salesman: "Well.. it is red. ... And it has 4 tires, windows and a roof!"
Customer: "And? Is that all you can tell me? I mean for wanting 80 grand upfront, that's a bit vague, don't you think?"
Salesman: "Well, unfortunately, I am under NDA, which I made up myself, so I can't tell you anything more. Do I get your money now?"
Customer: "Seems legit."
Salesman: "Oh and by the way, the car isn't ready. We are still testing it. You pay now, then you get SOME working parts in half a year, and someday you get the complete car. Oh and here you have one tire now, to have some nice goody."
Customer: "So I pay 80 grand for a car now, I will be tester for your car, I get a tire now, in half a year I get a somewhat working car and someday I don't know when I get a complete car, of whatever detail I know nothing about?"
Salesman: "Yes. And it gets better! You get a nametag 'I AM TEH KING' on your car, if you pay 80 grand now for a car you know little about and you don't know when you get it. Oh and when you get the car you paid for, everyone else gets the same car, only they get it for free. Of course they don't get a nametag 'I AM TEH KING' on it."
Customer: "Wow, that sounds like a great deal. Here you have my money!"
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Imagine this would be business practice with any other product. Like cars.
Customer: "Hello, I want to buy a new car!"
Salesman: "Good, I have a new car under development, just give me 80 grand."
Customer: "Hm, ok, but.. what sort of car is it?"
Salesman: "Well.. it is red. ... And it has 4 tires, windows and a roof!"
Customer: "And? Is that all you can tell me? I mean for wanting 80 grand upfront, that's a bit vague, don't you think?"
Salesman: "Well, unfortunately, I am under NDA, which I made up myself, so I can't tell you anything more. Do I get your money now?"
Customer: "Seems legit."
Salesman: "Oh and by the way, the car isn't ready. We are still testing it. You pay now, then you get SOME working parts in half a year, and someday you get the complete car. Oh and here you have one tire now, to have some nice goody."
Customer: "So I pay 80 grand for a car now, I will be tester for your car, I get a tire now, in half a year I get a somewhat working car and someday I don't know when I get a complete car, of whatever detail I know nothing about?"
Salesman: "Yes. And it gets better! You get a nametag 'I AM TEH KING' on your car, if you pay 80 grand now for a car you know little about and you don't know when you get it. Oh and when you get the car you paid for, everyone else gets the same car, only they get it for free. Of course they don't get a nametag 'I AM TEH KING' on it."
Customer: "Wow, that sounds like a great deal. Here you have my money!"
Spamming that 'dialogue' in multiple threads isn't going to make it any less false, however it does show how much conviction you have in this sense of entitlement you're displaying.
Elikal, you are not owed that car. No one has to buy that car before release. If someone wants to buy it before you and you cannot yet or cannot ever buy it, and that bothers you, that's not a fault of the manufacturer or the purchaser.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
With the latest announcement of EverQuest Next: Landmark selling founder's pack and including Alpha Access I am officially done alpha testing and beta testing MMOs. Both have become a way for the industry to suck money out of players desperate to be the first ones to try out a game and are no longer about finding bugs and actually testing the game to get it ready for a smooth launch for when it goes live.
It honestly sickens me that the industry has turned this way. Expect in the following years to see new ways for the industry to get more money out of MMO customers. I never saw beta tests turning into these things called "Founders Packs" so I can honestly say, I know for a fact more gimmicks and stuff that you'd never expect the MMO industry to expect you to pay for will be popping up in the future. Just wait and see.
I agree but there's already another extreme and that's Kickstarter.
Now the customer base is not only suppose to buy a game, pay for extra DLC, indulge in cash shop models, pay a subscription, but there also suppose to hand money over in the hope a company might make a game they possibly could like, with no avenue for compensation or, (reward), if it all goes wrong.
It is of course ludicrous, but it's simply another version of what entertainment companies used to do in exploiting a fanatic fanbase, (i.e. Starwars/Lucasarts Star Trex/Paramount). The fans may complain but because there so invested in the i.p they'll still buy whatever products or access, even if they were burnt a few times, if that happens the companies will keep doing it, (convention package ripoffs used to be the big one with Star Trek as I recall).
The only way to stop it is to keep the wallet shut and finding other things to invest in. However that is easier said then done for many as no profit making company has your best interests at heart...
Kickstarter I view as something a bit different because a lot of games have been created through it that wouldn't have been able to be made otherwise or they would have been vastly different because they would have been made under the predatory eyes of a company investing in the game.
Kickstarter for the most allows game to be made the way the developers want 100%. Also if you donate money that is already equivalent to the price of what the game is going to go for you get the game anyways without having to pay again.
Ah, I see...
Giving money on kickstarter for a project that may as well never be finished, made my amateurs, is ok.
But giving money to an AAA company with veteran developers who are creating those games since 15+ years and where you are sure to at least see the product someday is not ok.
Gotcha... or not.
Jean-Luc nr 1 reason why childhood ends for people on this page . He's got a point though cherry picking your fights based on subjective criteria of what is and isn't ok just makes you look like a child at best (developers should have the right to ask for money based on little to no evidence regardless of the means they do so, if you choose to believe kickstarter is better somehow that's subjective but in truth both beta/alpha packs and kickstarter present massive issues in what you get for your money).
Heck, I didn't say I support Kickstarters. I haven't payed for one once in my life. I just view it as more morally acceptable than an AAA company like Sony, who can afford to do without Founder's Packs yet decide to go the cash-grab route.
It has been around forever...Hate it? Don't participate in it.
If people will pay, companies will charge, especially with f2p imo. When stuff was more p2p, you usually had some stuff tacked on to pre-orders, so you had to pay, but it was something you were going to have to do to play the game anyway....Now you have to pay for something that is going to be potentially free, so it seems to upset people more.
I wouldn't be suprised to see SoE sell classes in EQN, like heroes are sold in mobas....You will be able to explore and unlock, or just buy them. I prefer p2p myself, but nothing is f2p, even if it is for some, if not enough people are paying, then they will make things that you can buy more temping/needed....If a game has nothing people want to buy, and they don't change it will be out of business quickly.
Originally posted by strawhat0981 Alpha/Closed beta tests are just a money grab now, but in saying that if i know i can get into a beta of a game i want i might just pay it. Weird huh?
I Strongly Disagree this is in many ways a solution to the Beta problem the industry had for years. By making you buy a more expensive copy of the game they are insuring that the people who go to beta and alpha are committed and are going to report issues. Rather than the people who sign up for free betas as a way to do a free trial and quit after 10 hours. They suck up server room and don't contribute anything this gives you more committed testers. And this really is only relevant to Alpha's by the time a game is in beta it really should be in pre-release mode where they are just fixing bugs not changing concepts, but that is just my feelings as an engineer showing through.
This is funny because of how untrue it is. You think people are more committed just because they pay? What a lot of these players do is just to play. They aren't testing the game. They are just flinging their money around so they can say they played the game before anyone else. This isn't the case for everyone, but to say that because someone paid means they are more willing to test the product out more than someone who didn't pay is laughable.
You might find it funny and untrue with your personal experience. I don't pretend to speak for other people. I paid $100 for the ingame goodies, early access, to help support this FREE FOR YOU TO PLAY GAME, and to hopefully make it a better game for everyone else by reporting the bugs, and giving feedback while I am playing the alpha.
I Don't 'Fling' my money around. I help support this product and don't know 100% if it'll be a great game or not, but I can really see the promise in it, and I want to help make it better all the while getting extra goodies at the same time.
Please don't pretend to speak for me and my reasons as to why I aid for a founders package. Guessing the motives of people you have never met, heard of, saw, or spoke to is very ignorant.
It has been around forever...Hate it? Don't participate in it.
If people will pay, companies will charge, especially with f2p imo. When stuff was more p2p, you usually had some stuff tacked on to pre-orders, so you had to pay, but it was something you were going to have to do to play the game anyway....Now you have to pay for something that is going to be potentially free, so it seems to upset people more.
I wouldn't be suprised to see SoE sell classes in EQN, like heroes are sold in mobas....You will be able to explore and unlock, or just buy them. I prefer p2p myself, but nothing is f2p, even if it is for some, if not enough people are paying, then they will make things that you can buy more temping/needed....If a game has nothing people want to buy, and they don't change it will be out of business quickly.
"It has been around forever" is not a viable excuse yet I see people repeating it over and over.
It has been around forever...Hate it? Don't participate in it.
If people will pay, companies will charge, especially with f2p imo. When stuff was more p2p, you usually had some stuff tacked on to pre-orders, so you had to pay, but it was something you were going to have to do to play the game anyway....Now you have to pay for something that is going to be potentially free, so it seems to upset people more.
I wouldn't be suprised to see SoE sell classes in EQN, like heroes are sold in mobas....You will be able to explore and unlock, or just buy them. I prefer p2p myself, but nothing is f2p, even if it is for some, if not enough people are paying, then they will make things that you can buy more temping/needed....If a game has nothing people want to buy, and they don't change it will be out of business quickly.
"It has been around forever" is not a viable excuse yet I see people repeating it over and over.
Why do they need an excuse? If people will pay, they will charge. I explained why I thought it has gotten worse. If people didn't pay, they wouldn't do it.
I've seen your posts you believe $ makes a good tester, yay for you.
Never said that. I only said that paying a bit removes some of the freeloaders and other parasites. It may not make a better tester on a personal level, but I believe it makes a better beta community overall.
Maybe it makes a better community (even though there is zero proof of that and I honestly doubt it), but it creates a lazy developer studio who don't feel as rushed to fix bugs or get their game out as fast as before because they've already been paid so they don't feel the pressure of needing to release the game as polished as possible.
I don't want my developers rushed. I want them to feel comfortable while coding and troubleshooting and debugging.
I was a software developer for quite some time. Not making games mind you, but business applications. I felt the sting of being rushed. No good comes from it. It does not however make them lazy. It they get 'lazy' as you say, they were lazy in the first place and the game/product is doomed already, regardless of how tight their budget/time is.
If they feel the support of the community, they will also have more pride in their work. This is hard to dispute. If i was a game developer as opposed to business applications, and I was making a game that a massive amount of people wanted to play and offered money upfront, I would work extra hard to please them, not laugh at them. I would feel pride in my work.
If you think otherwise, one possibility is that you might not feel pride if you were in the dev's shoes. But that is only a guess as I won't presume to know you.
I've seen your posts you believe $ makes a good tester, yay for you.
Never said that. I only said that paying a bit removes some of the freeloaders and other parasites. It may not make a better tester on a personal level, but I believe it makes a better beta community overall.
Maybe it makes a better community (even though there is zero proof of that and I honestly doubt it), but it creates a lazy developer studio who don't feel as rushed to fix bugs or get their game out as fast as before because they've already been paid so they don't feel the pressure of needing to release the game as polished as possible.
I don't want my developers rushed. I want them to feel comfortable while coding and troubleshooting and debugging.
I was a software developer for quite some time. Not making games mind you, but business applications. I felt the sting of being rushed. No good comes from it. It does not however make them lazy. It they get 'lazy' as you say, they were lazy in the first place and the game/product is doomed already, regardless of how tight their budget/time is.
If they feel the support of the community, they will also have more pride in their work. This is hard to dispute. If i was a game developer as opposed to business applications, and I was making a game that a massive amount of people wanted to play and offered money upfront, I would work extra hard to please them, not laugh at them. I would feel pride in my work.
If you think otherwise, one possibility is that you might not feel pride if you were in the dev's shoes. But that is only a guess as I won't presume to know you.
I said this because I've seen this quite frequently with Steam all the time where games ask for money to play alpha and seem to be stuck in an alpha state permanently. Either that or the game is released with the same bugs as it had in alpha.
Also the idea that those who are paying are more likely to report bugs is untrue. Look at Neverwinter Online. It had a founder's pack allowing people into all the betas and guess what happened? Beta testers kept a major game-breaking bug that affected the in-game economy to themselves so they could continue benefiting from the bug once the game went live.
So I don't buy all this "People who pay for alpha and beta are more likely to report bugs" talk in the least bit.
Originally posted by Covet78 I help support this product and don't know 100% if it'll be a great game or not, but I can really see the promise in it, and I want to help make it better all the while getting extra goodies at the same time.
That's the most common reason I see (anecdotal, no data behind that), and it seems like a rather realistic and grounded way to approach it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I've seen your posts you believe $ makes a good tester, yay for you.
Never said that. I only said that paying a bit removes some of the freeloaders and other parasites. It may not make a better tester on a personal level, but I believe it makes a better beta community overall.
Maybe it makes a better community (even though there is zero proof of that and I honestly doubt it), but it creates a lazy developer studio who don't feel as rushed to fix bugs or get their game out as fast as before because they've already been paid so they don't feel the pressure of needing to release the game as polished as possible.
I don't want my developers rushed. I want them to feel comfortable while coding and troubleshooting and debugging.
I was a software developer for quite some time. Not making games mind you, but business applications. I felt the sting of being rushed. No good comes from it. It does not however make them lazy. It they get 'lazy' as you say, they were lazy in the first place and the game/product is doomed already, regardless of how tight their budget/time is.
If they feel the support of the community, they will also have more pride in their work. This is hard to dispute. If i was a game developer as opposed to business applications, and I was making a game that a massive amount of people wanted to play and offered money upfront, I would work extra hard to please them, not laugh at them. I would feel pride in my work.
If you think otherwise, one possibility is that you might not feel pride if you were in the dev's shoes. But that is only a guess as I won't presume to know you.
I said this because I've seen this quite frequently with Steam all the time where games ask for money to play alpha and seem to be stuck in an alpha state permanently. Either that or the game is released with the same bugs as it had in alpha.
Also the idea that those who are paying are more likely to report bugs is untrue. Look at Neverwinter Online. It had a founder's pack allowing people into all the betas and guess what happened? Beta testers kept a major game-breaking bug that affected the in-game economy to themselves so they could continue benefiting from the bug once the game went live.
So I don't buy all this "People who pay for alpha and beta are more likely to report bugs" talk in the least bit.
when you say "Beta testers" are you refering to all, most, some, or a few? and when you answer, can you please link your source. Or is this speculation based on emotions and feelings? Of course some people will keep bug's to themselves. Some people are also pedophilliacs. Does this mean that people who don't report bugs to exploit are pedo's? of course not.
You cannot lump everyone together because you are typing faster then you are thinking. Yes some people will exploit. People have been exploiting since the beginning of human thought. I could care less about a few bad apples. Most people that financially support an ALPHA of a product no less, (not even beta), are probably doing it to support, help, get their hands on, something that they think they will like.
Remember, I said "most". If you believe "most" people that put money on a game not yet in alpha are currupt and evil and want to cheat and steal and all that jazz, I feel sorry for you and your perception of the human race.
A thief has extra locks on his door, A liar doesn't believe anyone, and an honest person is too trusting. Which are you?
I've seen your posts you believe $ makes a good tester, yay for you.
Never said that. I only said that paying a bit removes some of the freeloaders and other parasites. It may not make a better tester on a personal level, but I believe it makes a better beta community overall.
Maybe it makes a better community (even though there is zero proof of that and I honestly doubt it), but it creates a lazy developer studio who don't feel as rushed to fix bugs or get their game out as fast as before because they've already been paid so they don't feel the pressure of needing to release the game as polished as possible.
I don't want my developers rushed. I want them to feel comfortable while coding and troubleshooting and debugging.
I was a software developer for quite some time. Not making games mind you, but business applications. I felt the sting of being rushed. No good comes from it. It does not however make them lazy. It they get 'lazy' as you say, they were lazy in the first place and the game/product is doomed already, regardless of how tight their budget/time is.
If they feel the support of the community, they will also have more pride in their work. This is hard to dispute. If i was a game developer as opposed to business applications, and I was making a game that a massive amount of people wanted to play and offered money upfront, I would work extra hard to please them, not laugh at them. I would feel pride in my work.
If you think otherwise, one possibility is that you might not feel pride if you were in the dev's shoes. But that is only a guess as I won't presume to know you.
I said this because I've seen this quite frequently with Steam all the time where games ask for money to play alpha and seem to be stuck in an alpha state permanently. Either that or the game is released with the same bugs as it had in alpha.
Also the idea that those who are paying are more likely to report bugs is untrue. Look at Neverwinter Online. It had a founder's pack allowing people into all the betas and guess what happened? Beta testers kept a major game-breaking bug that affected the in-game economy to themselves so they could continue benefiting from the bug once the game went live.
So I don't buy all this "People who pay for alpha and beta are more likely to report bugs" talk in the least bit.
when you say "Beta testers" are you refering to all, most, some, or a few? and when you answer, can you please link your source. Or is this speculation based on emotions and feelings? Of course some people will keep bug's to themselves. Some people are also pedophilliacs. Does this mean that people who don't report bugs to exploit are pedo's? of course not.
You cannot lump everyone together because you are typing faster then you are thinking. Yes some people will exploit. People have been exploiting since the beginning of human thought. I could care less about a few bad apples. Most people that financially support an ALPHA of a product no less, (not even beta), are probably doing it to support, help, get their hands on, something that they think they will like.
Remember, I said "most". If you believe "most" people that put money on a game not yet in alpha are currupt and evil and want to cheat and steal and all that jazz, I feel sorry for you and your perception of the human race.
A thief has extra locks on his door, A liar doesn't believe anyone, and an honest person is too trusting. Which are you?
Asking me to link something that happened months ago... Okay. Also, a lot of beta testers kept it to themselves while a few brought it to other people's attention. In fact the bug would have still continued if it weren't for a few non-corrupt players reporting the bug to other sources because Cryptic Studios refused to do anything about it until it was pressured to by negative media coverage on the issue.
My point is that just because people pay for alpha or beta does not mean they are going to report bugs responsibly as they should, and saying that F2P alphas and betas get less bugs reported makes zero sense.
Maybe it makes a better community (even though there is zero proof of that and I honestly doubt it), but it creates a lazy developer studio who don't feel as rushed to fix bugs or get their game out as fast as before because they've already been paid so they don't feel the pressure of needing to release the game as polished as possible.
I don't want my developers rushed. I want them to feel comfortable while coding and troubleshooting and debugging.
I was a software developer for quite some time. Not making games mind you, but business applications. I felt the sting of being rushed. No good comes from it. It does not however make them lazy. It they get 'lazy' as you say, they were lazy in the first place and the game/product is doomed already, regardless of how tight their budget/time is.
If they feel the support of the community, they will also have more pride in their work. This is hard to dispute. If i was a game developer as opposed to business applications, and I was making a game that a massive amount of people wanted to play and offered money upfront, I would work extra hard to please them, not laugh at them. I would feel pride in my work.
If you think otherwise, one possibility is that you might not feel pride if you were in the dev's shoes. But that is only a guess as I won't presume to know you.
I said this because I've seen this quite frequently with Steam all the time where games ask for money to play alpha and seem to be stuck in an alpha state permanently. Either that or the game is released with the same bugs as it had in alpha.
Also the idea that those who are paying are more likely to report bugs is untrue. Look at Neverwinter Online. It had a founder's pack allowing people into all the betas and guess what happened? Beta testers kept a major game-breaking bug that affected the in-game economy to themselves so they could continue benefiting from the bug once the game went live.
So I don't buy all this "People who pay for alpha and beta are more likely to report bugs" talk in the least bit.
when you say "Beta testers" are you refering to all, most, some, or a few? and when you answer, can you please link your source. Or is this speculation based on emotions and feelings? Of course some people will keep bug's to themselves. Some people are also pedophilliacs. Does this mean that people who don't report bugs to exploit are pedo's? of course not.
You cannot lump everyone together because you are typing faster then you are thinking. Yes some people will exploit. People have been exploiting since the beginning of human thought. I could care less about a few bad apples. Most people that financially support an ALPHA of a product no less, (not even beta), are probably doing it to support, help, get their hands on, something that they think they will like.
Remember, I said "most". If you believe "most" people that put money on a game not yet in alpha are currupt and evil and want to cheat and steal and all that jazz, I feel sorry for you and your perception of the human race.
A thief has extra locks on his door, A liar doesn't believe anyone, and an honest person is too trusting. Which are you?
Asking me to link something that happened months ago... Okay. Also, a lot of beta testers kept it to themselves while a few brought it to other people's attention. In fact the bug would have still continued if it weren't for a few non-corrupt players reporting the bug to other sources because Cryptic Studios refused to do anything about it until it was pressured to by negative media coverage on the issue.
My point is that just because people pay for alpha or beta does not mean they are going to report bugs responsibly as they should, and saying that F2P alphas and betas get less bugs reported makes zero sense.
The part about Cryptic refusing to fix the issue and why they finally did seems more like personal assumption than an actual situation, no?
JLP, Covet78 and the others don't appear to be suggesting that paying money is a guarantee that the testers will report bugs responsibly, rather that the filter increases the likelihood of a tester community that does so.
An example of money as a cheater gate is the Black Market channel in the online FPS, Combat Arms. You can only play in that channel if you spent x amount of money. The channel sees far less cheating in it, as someone that's dropped a good bit of cash on the game is often far less inclined to chance losing the account and the money they've sunk into their character.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Maybe it makes a better community (even though there is zero proof of that and I honestly doubt it), but it creates a lazy developer studio who don't feel as rushed to fix bugs or get their game out as fast as before because they've already been paid so they don't feel the pressure of needing to release the game as polished as possible.
I don't want my developers rushed. I want them to feel comfortable while coding and troubleshooting and debugging.
I was a software developer for quite some time. Not making games mind you, but business applications. I felt the sting of being rushed. No good comes from it. It does not however make them lazy. It they get 'lazy' as you say, they were lazy in the first place and the game/product is doomed already, regardless of how tight their budget/time is.
If they feel the support of the community, they will also have more pride in their work. This is hard to dispute. If i was a game developer as opposed to business applications, and I was making a game that a massive amount of people wanted to play and offered money upfront, I would work extra hard to please them, not laugh at them. I would feel pride in my work.
If you think otherwise, one possibility is that you might not feel pride if you were in the dev's shoes. But that is only a guess as I won't presume to know you.
I said this because I've seen this quite frequently with Steam all the time where games ask for money to play alpha and seem to be stuck in an alpha state permanently. Either that or the game is released with the same bugs as it had in alpha.
Also the idea that those who are paying are more likely to report bugs is untrue. Look at Neverwinter Online. It had a founder's pack allowing people into all the betas and guess what happened? Beta testers kept a major game-breaking bug that affected the in-game economy to themselves so they could continue benefiting from the bug once the game went live.
So I don't buy all this "People who pay for alpha and beta are more likely to report bugs" talk in the least bit.
when you say "Beta testers" are you refering to all, most, some, or a few? and when you answer, can you please link your source. Or is this speculation based on emotions and feelings? Of course some people will keep bug's to themselves. Some people are also pedophilliacs. Does this mean that people who don't report bugs to exploit are pedo's? of course not.
You cannot lump everyone together because you are typing faster then you are thinking. Yes some people will exploit. People have been exploiting since the beginning of human thought. I could care less about a few bad apples. Most people that financially support an ALPHA of a product no less, (not even beta), are probably doing it to support, help, get their hands on, something that they think they will like.
Remember, I said "most". If you believe "most" people that put money on a game not yet in alpha are currupt and evil and want to cheat and steal and all that jazz, I feel sorry for you and your perception of the human race.
A thief has extra locks on his door, A liar doesn't believe anyone, and an honest person is too trusting. Which are you?
Asking me to link something that happened months ago... Okay. Also, a lot of beta testers kept it to themselves while a few brought it to other people's attention. In fact the bug would have still continued if it weren't for a few non-corrupt players reporting the bug to other sources because Cryptic Studios refused to do anything about it until it was pressured to by negative media coverage on the issue.
My point is that just because people pay for alpha or beta does not mean they are going to report bugs responsibly as they should, and saying that F2P alphas and betas get less bugs reported makes zero sense.
The part about Cryptic refusing to fix the issue and why they finally did seems more like personal assumption than an actual situation, no?
JLP, Covet78 and the others don't appear to be suggesting that paying money is a guarantee that the testers will report bugs responsibly, rather that the filter increases the likelihood of a tester community that does so.
An example of money as a cheater gate is the Black Market channel in the online FPS, Combat Arms. You can only play in that channel if you spent x amount of money. The channel sees far less cheating in it, as someone that's dropped a good bit of cash on the game is often far less inclined to chance losing the account and the money they've sunk into their character.
Actually that's a pretty well known fact. Cryptic Studios would close any thread that had to do with the bug and delete it as fast as possible in what seemed to be an attempt to sweep the issue under the rug.
Also what is your source that a community that pays will have an increase in reporting bugs? As someone who has done free alphas and betas I have always made sure to report bugs when I saw them and am sure many other alpha and beta testers that did it for free did the same also.
This generalization that people that don't pay for alpha and beta are not going be as inclined to report bugs is kinda silly. I don't think paying or not paying is going to increase or decrease the likelihood of players reporting or not reporting bugs.
Actually I can verify that some beta testers won't report a bug to purposefully take advantage of it. Heck, that happened in Minecraft with the last update. Not only that, but it was very well known players that did it to.
I know it's an entirely different game, but you can't really expect this to only be happening in Minecraft lol.
I really don't think there is anyway to get rid of this from happening other then removing public beta tests all together.
The part about Cryptic refusing to fix the issue and why they finally did seems more like personal assumption than an actual situation, no?
JLP, Covet78 and the others don't appear to be suggesting that paying money is a guarantee that the testers will report bugs responsibly, rather that the filter increases the likelihood of a tester community that does so.
An example of money as a cheater gate is the Black Market channel in the online FPS, Combat Arms. You can only play in that channel if you spent x amount of money. The channel sees far less cheating in it, as someone that's dropped a good bit of cash on the game is often far less inclined to chance losing the account and the money they've sunk into their character.
Actually that's a pretty well known fact. Cryptic Studios would close any thread that had to do with the bug and delete it as fast as possible in what seemed to be an attempt to sweep the issue under the rug.
Also what is your source that a community that pays will have an increase in reporting bugs? As someone who has done free alphas and betas I have always made sure to report bugs when I saw them and am sure many other alpha and beta testers that did it for free did the same also.
This generalization that people that don't pay for alpha and beta are not going be as inclined to report bugs is kinda silly. I don't think paying or not paying is going to increase or decrease the likelihood of players reporting or not reporting bugs.
I was an alpha and beta tester there and your claim does not jive with my experience. I was an early forum member. I joined right after they migrated their original forums over to PWE. I participated a lot on their forums from that point on and what you say doesn't seem accurate at all, especially in the private tester forums, both alpha and beta.
Testers were requested not to share explicit exploit details on the forums, but share them via the bug report and private message. Good testers respected this and bad testers, the kind who think they're entitled to behave however they will, did not.
Cryptic probably should have fixed that bug before release, along with a few others, but they didn't for whatever reason. I understand how tricky it can be making code work by a release schedule and bug fixes can introduce new problems. In hind sight it probably should have be classified as a showstopper, but that's always the case isn't it.
To say that most of us knew about and hid the bug is simply you fabricating a lie to further your agenda. There is this weird thing on these forums where people think they can say an untruth enough times to make it true. Prove what you said if you're going to call into question the integrity and character of other people. Now if you had said they didn't listen to testers who provided feedback that Gauntlgrym was going to be a mess, then I would have believed you because that was true.
Your assertion that people who participated in testing for free posted bugs, but people that paid for admission did not is patently absurd. Why are you sure the free participants did but question those who paid? Because it fits your argument and what you want to believe? Sorry, I'm not buying it.
I'm not fabricating anything. The bug literally existed for months before anything was done about it. Don't call me a liar because you don't like what I say. I'm not lying in the least bit. People only went on the forums about the bug because the game had been live for a bit and still the bug was allowed to run rampant.
Also, I guess you can't read because I didn't say that "people who participated in testing for free posted bug, but people that paid for admission did not..." I said I don't believe that paying or not paying has an overall affect on who reports bugs and who doesn't. Basically I'm saying that in both cases there will be people who report and people who don't. One option isn't going to increase or decrease the amount of bugs reported.
So does your indignation about "what alphas and betas have turned into" extend to this game Gloria Victis: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/6068572#6068572 where you are signed up, but they're only accepting people who pay them? You didn't have any rage for that game, but other games get a different treatment? Why is that? Why is some indie developer, with essentially no experience, who is unlikely to succeed and thus wasting "investor" money given a pass while full-fledge studios that will release the project not okay? This makes no sense to me.
What? I haven't even stated anything about Gloria Victis in this thread. Do I have to make a list of all the games in the world that have P2P alpha and beta, that I happened to comment on in the past? Gloria Victis can get a pass more on the basis that they are actually using all that money on the game. SOE doesn't even need the money from founder's packs to make EQN: Landmark or EQN so it's more likely that that money is just going straight to the paychecks of the devs and not the game.
And I'm signed up for EQN: Landmark too. I'm not going to pay for alpha. Just not happening. Feel free to do so though.
i use betas to decide if im going to buy the final product,
the problem with pay 2 play betas is that the audience is not going to give legitimate feed back because the quality of the game is not being questioned , most of these games end up in this sort of permanent beta state in which the community is entirely propelled by its own exclusivity and its userbase trying to justify their games legitimacy. any negative criticism is replied with "if you dont like it LEAVE" , then when the game launches and it is a complete failure, the beta testers all jump ship to the next beta
Comments
If you are going into them with the expectation that you are BUYING something then you should avoid them because you don't understand the concept behind them. They are more like DONATING some money to a kid who you think has talent so that he can go out and buy some paint and some brushes and enroll in art school. If you expect anything for your money other then the hope that the kid is honest and will TRY to do what he said he would with the money then you have the wrong expectations.
Imagine this would be business practice with any other product. Like cars.
Customer: "Hello, I want to buy a new car!"
Salesman: "Good, I have a new car under development, just give me 80 grand."
Customer: "Hm, ok, but.. what sort of car is it?"
Salesman: "Well.. it is red. ... And it has 4 tires, windows and a roof!"
Customer: "And? Is that all you can tell me? I mean for wanting 80 grand upfront, that's a bit vague, don't you think?"
Salesman: "Well, unfortunately, I am under NDA, which I made up myself, so I can't tell you anything more. Do I get your money now?"
Customer: "Seems legit."
Salesman: "Oh and by the way, the car isn't ready. We are still testing it. You pay now, then you get SOME working parts in half a year, and someday you get the complete car. Oh and here you have one tire now, to have some nice goody."
Customer: "So I pay 80 grand for a car now, I will be tester for your car, I get a tire now, in half a year I get a somewhat working car and someday I don't know when I get a complete car, of whatever detail I know nothing about?"
Salesman: "Yes. And it gets better! You get a nametag 'I AM TEH KING' on your car, if you pay 80 grand now for a car you know little about and you don't know when you get it. Oh and when you get the car you paid for, everyone else gets the same car, only they get it for free. Of course they don't get a nametag 'I AM TEH KING' on it."
Customer: "Wow, that sounds like a great deal. Here you have my money!"
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Lol, so you never buy any games?
literally, if I ONLY bought games that I could play before buying. and if I NEVER believed marketing... then I would have played...
League?
lol even minecraft I paid before I played..
OOOOOHHHH NOOO $11.00!!!!!!!!!!!
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
Spamming that 'dialogue' in multiple threads isn't going to make it any less false, however it does show how much conviction you have in this sense of entitlement you're displaying.
Elikal, you are not owed that car. No one has to buy that car before release. If someone wants to buy it before you and you cannot yet or cannot ever buy it, and that bothers you, that's not a fault of the manufacturer or the purchaser.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Heck, I didn't say I support Kickstarters. I haven't payed for one once in my life. I just view it as more morally acceptable than an AAA company like Sony, who can afford to do without Founder's Packs yet decide to go the cash-grab route.
Smile
PM before you report at least or you could just block.
It has been around forever...Hate it? Don't participate in it.
If people will pay, companies will charge, especially with f2p imo. When stuff was more p2p, you usually had some stuff tacked on to pre-orders, so you had to pay, but it was something you were going to have to do to play the game anyway....Now you have to pay for something that is going to be potentially free, so it seems to upset people more.
I wouldn't be suprised to see SoE sell classes in EQN, like heroes are sold in mobas....You will be able to explore and unlock, or just buy them. I prefer p2p myself, but nothing is f2p, even if it is for some, if not enough people are paying, then they will make things that you can buy more temping/needed....If a game has nothing people want to buy, and they don't change it will be out of business quickly.
You might find it funny and untrue with your personal experience. I don't pretend to speak for other people. I paid $100 for the ingame goodies, early access, to help support this FREE FOR YOU TO PLAY GAME, and to hopefully make it a better game for everyone else by reporting the bugs, and giving feedback while I am playing the alpha.
I Don't 'Fling' my money around. I help support this product and don't know 100% if it'll be a great game or not, but I can really see the promise in it, and I want to help make it better all the while getting extra goodies at the same time.
Please don't pretend to speak for me and my reasons as to why I aid for a founders package. Guessing the motives of people you have never met, heard of, saw, or spoke to is very ignorant.
"It has been around forever" is not a viable excuse yet I see people repeating it over and over.
Smile
Why do they need an excuse? If people will pay, they will charge. I explained why I thought it has gotten worse. If people didn't pay, they wouldn't do it.
I don't want my developers rushed. I want them to feel comfortable while coding and troubleshooting and debugging.
I was a software developer for quite some time. Not making games mind you, but business applications. I felt the sting of being rushed. No good comes from it. It does not however make them lazy. It they get 'lazy' as you say, they were lazy in the first place and the game/product is doomed already, regardless of how tight their budget/time is.
If they feel the support of the community, they will also have more pride in their work. This is hard to dispute. If i was a game developer as opposed to business applications, and I was making a game that a massive amount of people wanted to play and offered money upfront, I would work extra hard to please them, not laugh at them. I would feel pride in my work.
If you think otherwise, one possibility is that you might not feel pride if you were in the dev's shoes. But that is only a guess as I won't presume to know you.
I said this because I've seen this quite frequently with Steam all the time where games ask for money to play alpha and seem to be stuck in an alpha state permanently. Either that or the game is released with the same bugs as it had in alpha.
Also the idea that those who are paying are more likely to report bugs is untrue. Look at Neverwinter Online. It had a founder's pack allowing people into all the betas and guess what happened? Beta testers kept a major game-breaking bug that affected the in-game economy to themselves so they could continue benefiting from the bug once the game went live.
So I don't buy all this "People who pay for alpha and beta are more likely to report bugs" talk in the least bit.
Smile
That's the most common reason I see (anecdotal, no data behind that), and it seems like a rather realistic and grounded way to approach it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
when you say "Beta testers" are you refering to all, most, some, or a few? and when you answer, can you please link your source. Or is this speculation based on emotions and feelings? Of course some people will keep bug's to themselves. Some people are also pedophilliacs. Does this mean that people who don't report bugs to exploit are pedo's? of course not.
You cannot lump everyone together because you are typing faster then you are thinking. Yes some people will exploit. People have been exploiting since the beginning of human thought. I could care less about a few bad apples. Most people that financially support an ALPHA of a product no less, (not even beta), are probably doing it to support, help, get their hands on, something that they think they will like.
Remember, I said "most". If you believe "most" people that put money on a game not yet in alpha are currupt and evil and want to cheat and steal and all that jazz, I feel sorry for you and your perception of the human race.
A thief has extra locks on his door, A liar doesn't believe anyone, and an honest person is too trusting. Which are you?
Asking me to link something that happened months ago... Okay. Also, a lot of beta testers kept it to themselves while a few brought it to other people's attention. In fact the bug would have still continued if it weren't for a few non-corrupt players reporting the bug to other sources because Cryptic Studios refused to do anything about it until it was pressured to by negative media coverage on the issue.
My point is that just because people pay for alpha or beta does not mean they are going to report bugs responsibly as they should, and saying that F2P alphas and betas get less bugs reported makes zero sense.
Smile
The part about Cryptic refusing to fix the issue and why they finally did seems more like personal assumption than an actual situation, no?
JLP, Covet78 and the others don't appear to be suggesting that paying money is a guarantee that the testers will report bugs responsibly, rather that the filter increases the likelihood of a tester community that does so.
An example of money as a cheater gate is the Black Market channel in the online FPS, Combat Arms. You can only play in that channel if you spent x amount of money. The channel sees far less cheating in it, as someone that's dropped a good bit of cash on the game is often far less inclined to chance losing the account and the money they've sunk into their character.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Actually that's a pretty well known fact. Cryptic Studios would close any thread that had to do with the bug and delete it as fast as possible in what seemed to be an attempt to sweep the issue under the rug.
Also what is your source that a community that pays will have an increase in reporting bugs? As someone who has done free alphas and betas I have always made sure to report bugs when I saw them and am sure many other alpha and beta testers that did it for free did the same also.
This generalization that people that don't pay for alpha and beta are not going be as inclined to report bugs is kinda silly. I don't think paying or not paying is going to increase or decrease the likelihood of players reporting or not reporting bugs.
Smile
Actually I can verify that some beta testers won't report a bug to purposefully take advantage of it. Heck, that happened in Minecraft with the last update. Not only that, but it was very well known players that did it to.
I know it's an entirely different game, but you can't really expect this to only be happening in Minecraft lol.
I really don't think there is anyway to get rid of this from happening other then removing public beta tests all together.
I'm not fabricating anything. The bug literally existed for months before anything was done about it. Don't call me a liar because you don't like what I say. I'm not lying in the least bit. People only went on the forums about the bug because the game had been live for a bit and still the bug was allowed to run rampant.
Also, I guess you can't read because I didn't say that "people who participated in testing for free posted bug, but people that paid for admission did not..." I said I don't believe that paying or not paying has an overall affect on who reports bugs and who doesn't. Basically I'm saying that in both cases there will be people who report and people who don't. One option isn't going to increase or decrease the amount of bugs reported.
Smile
What? I haven't even stated anything about Gloria Victis in this thread. Do I have to make a list of all the games in the world that have P2P alpha and beta, that I happened to comment on in the past? Gloria Victis can get a pass more on the basis that they are actually using all that money on the game. SOE doesn't even need the money from founder's packs to make EQN: Landmark or EQN so it's more likely that that money is just going straight to the paychecks of the devs and not the game.
And I'm signed up for EQN: Landmark too. I'm not going to pay for alpha. Just not happening. Feel free to do so though.
Smile
i use betas to decide if im going to buy the final product,
the problem with pay 2 play betas is that the audience is not going to give legitimate feed back because the quality of the game is not being questioned , most of these games end up in this sort of permanent beta state in which the community is entirely propelled by its own exclusivity and its userbase trying to justify their games legitimacy. any negative criticism is replied with "if you dont like it LEAVE" , then when the game launches and it is a complete failure, the beta testers all jump ship to the next beta