Originally posted by Albatroes I miss lengthy alphas/betas being free and a privilege to get into, remember those days?
As much as i miss those days, the reason we are here now is because people started selling these exclusive alphas/betas and the big companies thought: "Hey, why don't we charge them directly"
Just read that post, did you? Maybe you could point out one person that actually got a refund on that post, because I just saw many who wanted a refund, none that actually got one.As it stands your link supports very few people getting a refund on a case-by-case basis, rather than it being a simple thing to do and "most MMOers" can do, also not everyone knows exactly what to say and shouldn't be a requirement to get a refund, unless you are dealing with a cash grab company who runs early access campaigns.Congrats on your job, I'm technical support myself.
"Trion Issuing Refunds but removing threads on forums which inform users how to get them."
So, you have proven that refunds are possible with the correct method form this example.
As I said before:
not everyone knows exactly what to say and shouldn't be a requirement to get a refund, unless you are dealing with a cash grab company who runs early access campaigns.
Yes because Reddit is such a hidden secret. Common or not my point stands. 200% yes head starts are worth it. If you dont think so, awesome for the crowd that thinks it is. For people that do awesome for them as they get quality time with less people in the way to find out if they really want to pay for the game. If they do, they are ahead of the curve and out of the hornets mess that comes with launch. How can this be a bad thing?
Again in the Archeage example, how can you not see a potential for early access being a bad thing? If so many people wanted a refund as you pointed out for me, then obviously it wasn't good. People don't refund something that is good.
It's bad because bad games are making money which leads to more bad games being made, I've already explained that if you missed it.
I will bite, what bad games?
You could take whatever I say and twist it to its only my personal opinion, so here is a list of links of other people's opinions below.
Whether a game is good or bad is opinion yes, but there are many people who share opinions for these games, so whether you think it is good is your opinion to.
Point being though, early access is becoming controversial and I'll give you a link to a post that may explain the problem better than I.
As someone said earlier in this thread, early access should be something small companies do, not big companies. THAT sounds reasonable as long as its not for the purpose of a cash grab from small companies.
Just read that post, did you? Maybe you could point out one person that actually got a refund on that post, because I just saw many who wanted a refund, none that actually got one.As it stands your link supports very few people getting a refund on a case-by-case basis, rather than it being a simple thing to do and "most MMOers" can do, also not everyone knows exactly what to say and shouldn't be a requirement to get a refund, unless you are dealing with a cash grab company who runs early access campaigns.Congrats on your job, I'm technical support myself.
"Trion Issuing Refunds but removing threads on forums which inform users how to get them."
So, you have proven that refunds are possible with the correct method form this example.
As I said before:
not everyone knows exactly what to say and shouldn't be a requirement to get a refund, unless you are dealing with a cash grab company who runs early access campaigns.
Yes because Reddit is such a hidden secret. Common or not my point stands. 200% yes head starts are worth it. If you dont think so, awesome for the crowd that thinks it is. For people that do awesome for them as they get quality time with less people in the way to find out if they really want to pay for the game. If they do, they are ahead of the curve and out of the hornets mess that comes with launch. How can this be a bad thing?
Again in the Archeage example, how can you not see a potential for early access being a bad thing? If so many people wanted a refund as you pointed out for me, then obviously it wasn't good. People don't refund something that is good.
It's bad because bad games are making money which leads to more bad games being made, I've already explained that if you missed it.
I will bite, what bad games?
You could take whatever I say and twist it to its only my personal opinion, so here is a list of links of other people's opinions below.
Whether a game is good or bad is opinion yes, but there are many people who share opinions for these games, so whether you think it is good is your opinion to.
Point being though, early access is becoming controversial and I'll give you a link to a post that may explain the problem better than I.
As someone said earlier in this thread, early access should be something small companies do, not big companies. THAT sounds reasonable as long as its not for the purpose of a cash grab from small companies.
that game you didnt really care about was the one that sent you 14 beta invites and after 10 min of play you knew it was not worth your time? Ahhh the good old days!!!!!
I don't get why people would be pissed with Early Access....you know its an unfinished product, so why get annoyed at what you have been told will be the case.
Its like ordering chocolate icecream and then getting pissed because you got chocolate icecream
Its almost like people are pissed that they have to acquire the willpower not to buy the game, and then are pissed at everyone else who is getting it....just because they decided not to...bizzzzzzare
No, my friend, it's like ordering chocolate flavored shit and hoping it turns into chocolate ice cream eventually but the guy who sold you the shit has no intention in ever turning it into chocolate ice cream.
The ones with the chocolate flavored shit are desperately trying to convince everyone that it's just a sample and eventually they get real chocolate ice cream.
After some time it turns into free chocolate flavored shit but it's still shit.
As opposed to what? Someone marketing some chocolate flavoured shit as ice cream, paying the price for ice cream and then realizing it's actually just chocolate flavoured shit? I fail to see the difference.
The particular flavor of ice cream we are talking about here is going to be free. They are asking you to pay for the chocolate flavored shit that will eventually be free chocolate flavored shit. That is the difference.
Honestly, the biggest difference in my opinion is that consumers are being allowed to help very small companies succeed in an industry where even giants have been falling like flies for the past 10 years. You can support ideas and concepts that you want to see come to life. Otherwise, you know what? I'm sure EA or Ubisoft or Activision will have something coming out next month for you.
There is nothing wrong in supporting very small companies to succeed. No one ever said that. There is something wrong if the billion dollar companies like SOE, EA, Ubisoft or Activision try to do the same and still delivering worse games than the small companies.
If you can't see the difference then i am not sure what else to say.
It's not that you won't be getting anything. Based on what I know, they're supposedly going to be releasing some perks for the EA users. Am I wrong? Now, yes, you're banking on those being actually good, but for $20 it's kinda like, meh!
As far as support goes, I would never stifle innovation, regardless of the person coming to the table with it. The reality of game development/publishing is that great ideas will almost always be squished due to associated risks. People like SOE with a project such as Landmark or, even H1Z1 are doing cool new stuff. The reality is that you probably won't see Activision relying on crowdfunding to do their next COD, but wouldn't it be cool if you could, for instance, vote on a feature, pre-order it and have them add it? Like is there something missing that you'd want to see in GTAV? Yeah? Ok, nominate it, get support, and then get it crowdfunded and we'll add it in. BAM!!!!! Oh, plus when you do that they'll give you some sort of in-game valuables like cash or widgets.
Just read that post, did you? Maybe you could point out one person that actually got a refund on that post, because I just saw many who wanted a refund, none that actually got one.As it stands your link supports very few people getting a refund on a case-by-case basis, rather than it being a simple thing to do and "most MMOers" can do, also not everyone knows exactly what to say and shouldn't be a requirement to get a refund, unless you are dealing with a cash grab company who runs early access campaigns.Congrats on your job, I'm technical support myself.
"Trion Issuing Refunds but removing threads on forums which inform users how to get them."
So, you have proven that refunds are possible with the correct method form this example.
As I said before:
not everyone knows exactly what to say and shouldn't be a requirement to get a refund, unless you are dealing with a cash grab company who runs early access campaigns.
Yes because Reddit is such a hidden secret. Common or not my point stands. 200% yes head starts are worth it. If you dont think so, awesome for the crowd that thinks it is. For people that do awesome for them as they get quality time with less people in the way to find out if they really want to pay for the game. If they do, they are ahead of the curve and out of the hornets mess that comes with launch. How can this be a bad thing?
Again in the Archeage example, how can you not see a potential for early access being a bad thing? If so many people wanted a refund as you pointed out for me, then obviously it wasn't good. People don't refund something that is good.
It's bad because bad games are making money which leads to more bad games being made, I've already explained that if you missed it.
I will bite, what bad games?
You could take whatever I say and twist it to its only my personal opinion, so here is a list of links of other people's opinions below.
Whether a game is good or bad is opinion yes, but there are many people who share opinions for these games, so whether you think it is good is your opinion to.
Point being though, early access is becoming controversial and I'll give you a link to a post that may explain the problem better than I.
As someone said earlier in this thread, early access should be something small companies do, not big companies. THAT sounds reasonable as long as its not for the purpose of a cash grab from small companies.
If you dont have an opinion to share, there is no dialog.
Ok, ill bite I think Tera, ESO, Archeage and DayZ are bad games. Above are references to people who share my opinion as well as a post that highlights some problems I and other people on this thread have with early access.
Not sure why you are resorting to dodging other peoples points, if you don't have anything tangible to support early access being a good thing then you have nothing to add for your side of the conversation.
that game you didnt really care about was the one that sent you 14 beta invites and after 10 min of play you knew it was not worth your time? Ahhh the good old days!!!!!
Yep, except now you could pay 50$+ for it.
Nope, I only pay 50 bucks for the MMOs I really wana play. Good or bad I will find out when I play it. Also its my $50, if I want to burn it for a few hours of fun, whats it off your nose? I spend 50 bucks to try a new dish when I eat out. Like it or not Im glad I had that time to do something different. Sometimes I need to feed my A.D.D.
Currently at 400 yes / 447 no; but looking at more recent comments, those who voted "no" also includes:
people who don't want to play an open-world PvP game* ("Sorry, am too disgusting carebear for this game"; "once again a 'Zombie survival horror game' is more dependently focused on PVP gameplay than any actual zombie survival")
people who have no interest in the subject matter / genre ("Zombie apocalypse games aren't exactly my cup of tea"; "The world is on a Zombie kick. So tired of it all."; "It has zombies, so that is a big NOPE! from me."),
people who just hate SOE for whatever reason.
* Leaving aside that PvE servers are apparently a thing in this game.
And all the people who said yes are simply people who wish to tell others how to spend their money. If they don't want to play an unfinished game, then "early access" is already an automatic no for them which is perfectly fine. Early access is just that, early access into the game before its finished, it's not a launch.
Just read that post, did you? Maybe you could point out one person that actually got a refund on that post, because I just saw many who wanted a refund, none that actually got one.As it stands your link supports very few people getting a refund on a case-by-case basis, rather than it being a simple thing to do and "most MMOers" can do, also not everyone knows exactly what to say and shouldn't be a requirement to get a refund, unless you are dealing with a cash grab company who runs early access campaigns.Congrats on your job, I'm technical support myself.
"Trion Issuing Refunds but removing threads on forums which inform users how to get them."
So, you have proven that refunds are possible with the correct method form this example.
As I said before:
not everyone knows exactly what to say and shouldn't be a requirement to get a refund, unless you are dealing with a cash grab company who runs early access campaigns.
Yes because Reddit is such a hidden secret. Common or not my point stands. 200% yes head starts are worth it. If you dont think so, awesome for the crowd that thinks it is. For people that do awesome for them as they get quality time with less people in the way to find out if they really want to pay for the game. If they do, they are ahead of the curve and out of the hornets mess that comes with launch. How can this be a bad thing?
Again in the Archeage example, how can you not see a potential for early access being a bad thing? If so many people wanted a refund as you pointed out for me, then obviously it wasn't good. People don't refund something that is good.
It's bad because bad games are making money which leads to more bad games being made, I've already explained that if you missed it.
I will bite, what bad games?
You could take whatever I say and twist it to its only my personal opinion, so here is a list of links of other people's opinions below.
Whether a game is good or bad is opinion yes, but there are many people who share opinions for these games, so whether you think it is good is your opinion to.
Point being though, early access is becoming controversial and I'll give you a link to a post that may explain the problem better than I.
As someone said earlier in this thread, early access should be something small companies do, not big companies. THAT sounds reasonable as long as its not for the purpose of a cash grab from small companies.
If you dont have an opinion to share, there is no dialog.
Ok, ill bite I think Tera, ESO, Archeage and DayZ are bad games. Above are references to people who share my opinion as well as a post that highlights some problems I and other people on this thread have with early access.
Not sure why you are resorting to dodging other peoples points, if you don't have anything tangible to support early access being a good thing then you have nothing to add for your side of the conversation.
Im not talking to them, Im talking to you. Should I leave this tread and respond to them over talking to you? Why are they bad games?
that game you didnt really care about was the one that sent you 14 beta invites and after 10 min of play you knew it was not worth your time? Ahhh the good old days!!!!!
Yep, except now you could pay 50$+ for it.
Nope, I only pay 50 bucks for the MMOs I really wana play. Good or bad I will find out when I play it. Also its my $50, if I want to burn it for a few hours of fun, whats it off your nose? I spend 50 bucks to try a new dish when I eat out. Like it or not Im glad I had that time to do something different. Sometimes I need to feed my A.D.D.
for the third time, bad games making money leads to more bad games. It is something that effects other people, so please, order more food and get fat instead of making bad games fat.
that game you didnt really care about was the one that sent you 14 beta invites and after 10 min of play you knew it was not worth your time? Ahhh the good old days!!!!!
Yep, except now you could pay 50$+ for it.
Nope, I only pay 50 bucks for the MMOs I really wana play. Good or bad I will find out when I play it. Also its my $50, if I want to burn it for a few hours of fun, whats it off your nose? I spend 50 bucks to try a new dish when I eat out. Like it or not Im glad I had that time to do something different. Sometimes I need to feed my A.D.D.
for the third time, bad games making money leads to more bad games. It is something that effects other people, so please, order more food and get fat instead of making bad games fat.
So your point here is to tell people how to spend their money? lol Is that your message for this thread?
Originally posted by Kyleran Early access is for the 50% who voted yes in the poll, clearly they are willing to pay for it.
AA was my last go for early access,or at least paying for it, going forward I'll wait for launch, and probably then some.
Ironically that was by far the best time to play AA.
LOL, that's what I console myself with, that I enjoyed AA during the best 3 or 4 months the game had here, even if I never ended up playing after it launched.
Not my best investment of course, but then I paid a premium price for the ESO Imperial edition for about $80 bucks and got about 2 months out of it between pre and post launch, so maybe AA was still a better deal.
I'm pretty much going ignore the new games coming out until they've all got some seasoning under them.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Currently at 400 yes / 447 no; but looking at more recent comments, those who voted "no" also includes:
people who don't want to play an open-world PvP game* ("Sorry, am too disgusting carebear for this game"; "once again a 'Zombie survival horror game' is more dependently focused on PVP gameplay than any actual zombie survival")
people who have no interest in the subject matter / genre ("Zombie apocalypse games aren't exactly my cup of tea"; "The world is on a Zombie kick. So tired of it all."; "It has zombies, so that is a big NOPE! from me."),
people who just hate SOE for whatever reason.
* Leaving aside that PvE servers are apparently a thing in this game.
And all the people who said yes are simply people who wish to tell others how to spend their money. If they don't want to play an unfinished game, then "early access" is already an automatic no for them which is perfectly fine. Early access is just that, early access into the game before its finished, it's not a launch.
Problem is, it's an issue that affects everyone. Lots of people paying for early release encourages game companies to focus on that business model - releasing buggy, unfinished games and slapping on a tag 'alpha'. 'beta' or 'early release' (I'm sure the marketing departments will come up with better euphemisms in the future for 'half-finished') with the knowledge that people will pay money for an inferior/unfinished product. Then they can make back their money before even finishing their product, and impetus is lost to expedite a finished, polished product. There's a number of games that have languished in beta limbo for years now due to this. It's a pretty awful trend actually.
The ironic thing is, many of these people paid into early access anyway. And many gamers complain that devs should use gamer feedback to improve their game.
I'm not a big fan of paid betas either, but can we stop being so hypocritical? Lately the games that have paid betas clearly say so. They clearly state that they have an unfinished game and want you to help them test it. It's paid, yes, but that was known upfront.
So can we stop buying 'beta access pack X' only to complain the game is unfinished or has bugs. If you don't want to test a game, then don't buy it the second an access package becomes available. Wait. For. Release.
Currently at 400 yes / 447 no; but looking at more recent comments, those who voted "no" also includes:
people who don't want to play an open-world PvP game* ("Sorry, am too disgusting carebear for this game"; "once again a 'Zombie survival horror game' is more dependently focused on PVP gameplay than any actual zombie survival")
people who have no interest in the subject matter / genre ("Zombie apocalypse games aren't exactly my cup of tea"; "The world is on a Zombie kick. So tired of it all."; "It has zombies, so that is a big NOPE! from me."),
people who just hate SOE for whatever reason.
* Leaving aside that PvE servers are apparently a thing in this game.
And all the people who said yes are simply people who wish to tell others how to spend their money. If they don't want to play an unfinished game, then "early access" is already an automatic no for them which is perfectly fine. Early access is just that, early access into the game before its finished, it's not a launch.
Problem is, it's an issue that affects everyone. Lots of people paying for early release encourages game companies to focus on that business model - releasing buggy, unfinished games and slapping on a tag 'alpha'. 'beta' or 'early release' (I'm sure the marketing departments will come up with better euphemisms in the future for 'half-finished') with the knowledge that people will pay money for an inferior/unfinished product. Then they can make back their money before even finishing their product, and impetus is lost to expedite a finished, polished product. There's a number of games that have languished in beta limbo for years now due to this. It's a pretty awful trend actually.
I don't mind much for a beta limbo, I play Warframe off and on and it is still beta I believe. I even payed for a low founder package, but it was optional to play, not required. Which to me said something very positive on Warframes approach to beta and F2P.
that game you didnt really care about was the one that sent you 14 beta invites and after 10 min of play you knew it was not worth your time? Ahhh the good old days!!!!!
Yep, except now you could pay 50$+ for it.
Actually those were the good old days. If you got into a beta it felt special cause you didn't buy your way in with thousands of other people who just want to find the best ways to level at launch. If you didn't get in, no biggy, it's only a game.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
that game you didnt really care about was the one that sent you 14 beta invites and after 10 min of play you knew it was not worth your time? Ahhh the good old days!!!!!
Yep, except now you could pay 50$+ for it.
Actually those were the good old days. If you got into a beta it felt special cause you didn't buy your way in with thousands of other people who just want to find the best ways to level at launch. If you didn't get in, no biggy, it's only a game.
Ironically this is still the way I do it. Except I have an option now, if I do decide to spend my money on Early Access. I never felt special getting a beta invite for EQ. After all using your words, "it's only a game", why should I feel special.
that game you didnt really care about was the one that sent you 14 beta invites and after 10 min of play you knew it was not worth your time? Ahhh the good old days!!!!!
Yep, except now you could pay 50$+ for it.
Actually those were the good old days. If you got into a beta it felt special cause you didn't buy your way in with thousands of other people who just want to find the best ways to level at launch. If you didn't get in, no biggy, it's only a game.
Ironically this is still the way I do it. Except I have an option now, if I do decide to spend my money on Early Access. I never felt special getting a beta invite for EQ. After all using your words, "it's only a game", why should I feel special.
I dont wana feel special, I just want to blow things up in new ways and see new virtual worlds.
What kills me is when a game is launched as a finished game and it is clearly not even close to finished. Destiny and Unity comes to mind in resent past. There are so many other to name its becoming a habit of these game companies. It needs to stop.
What kills me is when a game is launched as a finished game and it is clearly not even close to finished. Destiny and Unity comes to mind in resent past. There are so many other to name its becoming a habit of these game companies. It needs to stop.
I would agree with you if you could name me a list of MMOs in the past that launched with end game content ready to go and quest that were fully flushed out and servers were stable? In my 16 years of MMOing I can only remember 1 smooth launch.
Yes, I'm sure some people are sick of EA programs.
Strangely though, there'll probably be login queues when the EA servers open tomorrow...
Some people are sick of subscription games.
Some people are sick of Cash Shops.
Some people are sick of tab-targeting.
Some people are sick of "action combat".
Welcome to the human race.
So true. Truer still...a game can have one or more of these things and it will not make me a bit "sick" as long as the gameplay experience, imo, is genuinely fun.
What kills me is when a game is launched as a finished game and it is clearly not even close to finished. Destiny and Unity comes to mind in resent past. There are so many other to name its becoming a habit of these game companies. It needs to stop.
I can agree with this, just because there isn't a standard doesn't mean there shouldn't be one.
Look at Sega Gen. and SNES games, if they had a failed launch there is no online update back in the day to fix it.
I can give them a break on server stability etc. but not incomplete content. Shame its kind of expected to get an incomplete MMO though at launch.
they will over-hype it, trying to get friends and other gamers to all get on board thinking it will help the game
Originally posted by PaRoXiTiC DayZ Standalone continues to be a top seller on Steam week in and week out. I would say that you are wrong. People are not sick of Early Access, people love Early Access. It's just some people don't fully understand Early Access.
My opinion on DayZ is that people want the game to succeed but as a result over-hype it to be a better game than it actually is.
In regards to your statement that people are not tired of early access because of DayZ's sales reflected by steam, tell that to the current 16k+ negative reviews on the game.
Those 16K+ people are the ones I am talking about that do not fully understand "Early Access Alpha". Just go read through some of the reviews. Hardly any of them are negative about the actual content of the game, but the are bitching about the bugs, AI, frames, anti smooth gameplay. All things that are expected from an alpha. These people just don't understand what they bought and they should not have purchased it in Early Access.
Reading through the negative I can literally only come up with one legitimate complaint and that is the hacking that is going on. Hacking can even ruin it for us who understand the alpha process. If you are unable to play the game to find bugs, glitches, ect ect due to being killed by hackers all the time then you have a real complaint. Alpha or not they do need to get the hacking under control or we can't do our job as game testers in this alpha.
Apart from H1Z1, which I could care almost less about, and to the OP topic
I think EA is marginally better than pre-ordering, for those titles that have a box cost. At least you are getting something semi-tangible out of plunking down your cash early (apart from a costume effect and maybe some retarded mini-pet or something).
Paid EA for a title that is announced and destined to be F2P... seriously, I don't understand what the purchasers of that are thinking. I really don't blame the publisher for doing it - it makes great business sense, and you aren't misleading anyone - but the people who actually pay for something.. in essentially alpha/beta status.. to test for the company.. a title that will end up being F2P - it's shear genius on the part of the publisher, and shear lunacy on the part of the consumer.
But that's my opinion. Maybe I just haven't found a title I feel passionate enough about to feel like paid EA was a good idea.
Comments
As much as i miss those days, the reason we are here now is because people started selling these exclusive alphas/betas and the big companies thought: "Hey, why don't we charge them directly"
This is how we got where we are now.
You could take whatever I say and twist it to its only my personal opinion, so here is a list of links of other people's opinions below.
Whether a game is good or bad is opinion yes, but there are many people who share opinions for these games, so whether you think it is good is your opinion to.
Point being though, early access is becoming controversial and I'll give you a link to a post that may explain the problem better than I.
As someone said earlier in this thread, early access should be something small companies do, not big companies. THAT sounds reasonable as long as its not for the purpose of a cash grab from small companies.
Archeage
http://sf.my.com/us/forum/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=2856
Tera
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/978283-tera/65555548
ESO
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/97297/the-game-sucks-playing-real-elder-scrolls-to-get-the-bad-taste-out-my-mouth
Dayz
http://steamcommunity.com/app/221100/discussions/0/648814845190922951/
The Early Access Game Problem
https://hokage.org/content/early-access-game-problem
If you dont have an opinion to share, there is no dialog.
Yep, except now you could pay 50$+ for it.
It's not that you won't be getting anything. Based on what I know, they're supposedly going to be releasing some perks for the EA users. Am I wrong? Now, yes, you're banking on those being actually good, but for $20 it's kinda like, meh!
As far as support goes, I would never stifle innovation, regardless of the person coming to the table with it. The reality of game development/publishing is that great ideas will almost always be squished due to associated risks. People like SOE with a project such as Landmark or, even H1Z1 are doing cool new stuff. The reality is that you probably won't see Activision relying on crowdfunding to do their next COD, but wouldn't it be cool if you could, for instance, vote on a feature, pre-order it and have them add it? Like is there something missing that you'd want to see in GTAV? Yeah? Ok, nominate it, get support, and then get it crowdfunded and we'll add it in. BAM!!!!! Oh, plus when you do that they'll give you some sort of in-game valuables like cash or widgets.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Ok, ill bite I think Tera, ESO, Archeage and DayZ are bad games. Above are references to people who share my opinion as well as a post that highlights some problems I and other people on this thread have with early access.
Not sure why you are resorting to dodging other peoples points, if you don't have anything tangible to support early access being a good thing then you have nothing to add for your side of the conversation.
Nope, I only pay 50 bucks for the MMOs I really wana play. Good or bad I will find out when I play it. Also its my $50, if I want to burn it for a few hours of fun, whats it off your nose? I spend 50 bucks to try a new dish when I eat out. Like it or not Im glad I had that time to do something different. Sometimes I need to feed my A.D.D.
And all the people who said yes are simply people who wish to tell others how to spend their money. If they don't want to play an unfinished game, then "early access" is already an automatic no for them which is perfectly fine. Early access is just that, early access into the game before its finished, it's not a launch.
Im not talking to them, Im talking to you. Should I leave this tread and respond to them over talking to you? Why are they bad games?
for the third time, bad games making money leads to more bad games. It is something that effects other people, so please, order more food and get fat instead of making bad games fat.
So your point here is to tell people how to spend their money? lol Is that your message for this thread?
LOL, that's what I console myself with, that I enjoyed AA during the best 3 or 4 months the game had here, even if I never ended up playing after it launched.
Not my best investment of course, but then I paid a premium price for the ESO Imperial edition for about $80 bucks and got about 2 months out of it between pre and post launch, so maybe AA was still a better deal.
I'm pretty much going ignore the new games coming out until they've all got some seasoning under them.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Problem is, it's an issue that affects everyone. Lots of people paying for early release encourages game companies to focus on that business model - releasing buggy, unfinished games and slapping on a tag 'alpha'. 'beta' or 'early release' (I'm sure the marketing departments will come up with better euphemisms in the future for 'half-finished') with the knowledge that people will pay money for an inferior/unfinished product. Then they can make back their money before even finishing their product, and impetus is lost to expedite a finished, polished product. There's a number of games that have languished in beta limbo for years now due to this. It's a pretty awful trend actually.
The ironic thing is, many of these people paid into early access anyway. And many gamers complain that devs should use gamer feedback to improve their game.
I'm not a big fan of paid betas either, but can we stop being so hypocritical? Lately the games that have paid betas clearly say so. They clearly state that they have an unfinished game and want you to help them test it. It's paid, yes, but that was known upfront.
So can we stop buying 'beta access pack X' only to complain the game is unfinished or has bugs. If you don't want to test a game, then don't buy it the second an access package becomes available. Wait. For. Release.
I don't mind much for a beta limbo, I play Warframe off and on and it is still beta I believe. I even payed for a low founder package, but it was optional to play, not required. Which to me said something very positive on Warframes approach to beta and F2P.
Actually those were the good old days. If you got into a beta it felt special cause you didn't buy your way in with thousands of other people who just want to find the best ways to level at launch. If you didn't get in, no biggy, it's only a game.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Ironically this is still the way I do it. Except I have an option now, if I do decide to spend my money on Early Access. I never felt special getting a beta invite for EQ. After all using your words, "it's only a game", why should I feel special.
I dont wana feel special, I just want to blow things up in new ways and see new virtual worlds.
*hornets NEST
nest nest nest nest nest nest. that's not even a typo. You are worse than pants at a picnic. Who would wears pants to a picnic? wtf?
I dont mind early access.
What kills me is when a game is launched as a finished game and it is clearly not even close to finished. Destiny and Unity comes to mind in resent past. There are so many other to name its becoming a habit of these game companies. It needs to stop.
I would agree with you if you could name me a list of MMOs in the past that launched with end game content ready to go and quest that were fully flushed out and servers were stable? In my 16 years of MMOing I can only remember 1 smooth launch.
So true. Truer still...a game can have one or more of these things and it will not make me a bit "sick" as long as the gameplay experience, imo, is genuinely fun.
I am sick of the zombie genre in general tho,
I can agree with this, just because there isn't a standard doesn't mean there shouldn't be one.
Look at Sega Gen. and SNES games, if they had a failed launch there is no online update back in the day to fix it.
I can give them a break on server stability etc. but not incomplete content. Shame its kind of expected to get an incomplete MMO though at launch.
Those 16K+ people are the ones I am talking about that do not fully understand "Early Access Alpha". Just go read through some of the reviews. Hardly any of them are negative about the actual content of the game, but the are bitching about the bugs, AI, frames, anti smooth gameplay. All things that are expected from an alpha. These people just don't understand what they bought and they should not have purchased it in Early Access.
Reading through the negative I can literally only come up with one legitimate complaint and that is the hacking that is going on. Hacking can even ruin it for us who understand the alpha process. If you are unable to play the game to find bugs, glitches, ect ect due to being killed by hackers all the time then you have a real complaint. Alpha or not they do need to get the hacking under control or we can't do our job as game testers in this alpha.
Apart from H1Z1, which I could care almost less about, and to the OP topic
I think EA is marginally better than pre-ordering, for those titles that have a box cost. At least you are getting something semi-tangible out of plunking down your cash early (apart from a costume effect and maybe some retarded mini-pet or something).
Paid EA for a title that is announced and destined to be F2P... seriously, I don't understand what the purchasers of that are thinking. I really don't blame the publisher for doing it - it makes great business sense, and you aren't misleading anyone - but the people who actually pay for something.. in essentially alpha/beta status.. to test for the company.. a title that will end up being F2P - it's shear genius on the part of the publisher, and shear lunacy on the part of the consumer.
But that's my opinion. Maybe I just haven't found a title I feel passionate enough about to feel like paid EA was a good idea.