Originally posted by Torval Then don't participate. Let others partake in their entertainment without your judgmental faux moralism. It's not a scam. Stop using that word. They are clear about what they offer and deliver. You not liking doesn't amount to immoral or fraudulent practices. The vendetta people have to prevent others from making their own choices amounts to fascism.
That about sums it up.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
More like: we don't mind paying for a complete game. But when game companies put out half a game, while insisting it is a complete game, and then charging box+sub+cash shop, and THEN the CEO sends out their fanbois to tell people how great it is, that deserves a response.
If only to discourage the same behavior in the future.
Well now you're either lying or your being willfully ignorant. Right on their website they state the game is incomplete and rough. That is immoral.
I agree it's not worth the money. I won't pay it. I don't think the game is that good. I also find the advertising push distasteful, but it's not immoral. People need to make that distinction, between their own preferences and what is actually right and wrong.
The agenda to determine what others can and should do with amoral entertainment, like I said in the post above, amounts to fascism.
HI! Here is the statement from the PFO CEO:
This is not a game in any sort of "test" mode. We are not "alpha" or "beta" testing. We're in Early Enrollment - a complete game with limited features that are being iterated and expanded based on Crowdforging with our players.
So before you accuse others of lying or being willfully ignorant you should ASK people why they say it's a complete game and not in testing...
Again... to me the worst part is not allowing people to pay a box price, plus sub plus cash shop (some guy in the other thread talking about his $230 Small holding...) but it's the combination of that with NOT WIPING at open release. I did support the concept of the game... I paid something like $270 for multiple kickstarter accounts. I then realized that what they were in fact peddling was a system where you just paid money to give your character a year + edge in a time based XP system in an open world territory control PvP game. THAT is not something I support and have no problem saying so. I'd also never stop someone from coming to say they love the game and like the fact that they get to buy themselves a big character development edge. That's their call and I actually encourage them to come say so... because that's what makes the popcorn pop on forums like this. If we didn't have "WHY MY VIDEO GAME MATTERS" posts, it would be a very boring world.
The very first line from the FAQ on a page EVERYONE can easily find. I know you have a personal windmill to tilt here and it shows in your selective fact bias. I don't. I'm not going to play the game. I don't think their sub is a good deal and I wouldn't pay it even if I found the game interesting (which I don't). However, I'm not on some bent to disparage the game at every turn like you are.
I'm not here to prevent or encourage people to play the game. I'm saying that their practice isn't deceptive. They are up front about what they offer and I support their right to choose how to market and monetize their game within that framework. So yeah, people are distorting facts in their trash bashing witch-hunt. Lies or willful ignorance you choose.
This is the first phase of our launch of the game. Early Enrollment began after Alpha testing was complete. During Early Enrollment many key game features will not be implemented or will be implemented in a very basic state. Based on feedback and interaction with the players the Goblinworks team will be iterating on the design, prioritizing the order that features are added and incorporating suggestions from the community into the design.
This is a process similar to the way Minecraft and GMail were developed. We know it's not for everyone, but we're sure there are lots of players who want a front-row seat to watch an MMO being built from the ground up.
Early Enrollment will not be a "beta test" in the classic sense. The objective is not to find and fix bugs - although that will be a part of what happens during Early Enrollment. The objective is to begin with a "minimum viable product", and then expand the game in a feedback-driven process.
We release regular updates which introduce and iterate on existing features and provide polish and bug fixes. You can see a list at this link.
Maybe you shouldn't engage in Kickstarter and should read the risk assessment on the page before you throw away so much money with an expectation that a game is developed to your vision.
That is nice and all, but when the CEO says it is a complete game, that is what the company thinks it is, not some FAQ, not some forum, but directly from the head of the company.
He said it, and that is not something you or any other booster can get away from.
And having said it is a complete game, it deserves to be judged by that fact, both on the game play and quality of the product, and the business model it is being operated under.
On both of those points, many of us feel the game is lacking, and are within our rights to say as much. And in the face of an attempt at social media marketing by the CEO, one might even feel obligated to other gamers, to shed light on the actual reality of things.
When did telling the truth become fascism? Only when it is criticizing a game you like?
More like: we don't mind paying for a complete game. But when game companies put out half a game, while insisting it is a complete game, and then charging box+sub+cash shop, and THEN the CEO sends out their fanbois to tell people how great it is, that deserves a response.
If only to discourage the same behavior in the future.
Well now you're either lying or your being willfully ignorant. Right on their website they state the game is incomplete and rough. That is immoral.
I agree it's not worth the money. I won't pay it. I don't think the game is that good. I also find the advertising push distasteful, but it's not immoral. People need to make that distinction, between their own preferences and what is actually right and wrong.
The agenda to determine what others can and should do with amoral entertainment, like I said in the post above, amounts to fascism.
HI! Here is the statement from the PFO CEO:
This is not a game in any sort of "test" mode. We are not "alpha" or "beta" testing. We're in Early Enrollment - a complete game with limited features that are being iterated and expanded based on Crowdforging with our players.
So before you accuse others of lying or being willfully ignorant you should ASK people why they say it's a complete game and not in testing...
Again... to me the worst part is not allowing people to pay a box price, plus sub plus cash shop (some guy in the other thread talking about his $230 Small holding...) but it's the combination of that with NOT WIPING at open release. I did support the concept of the game... I paid something like $270 for multiple kickstarter accounts. I then realized that what they were in fact peddling was a system where you just paid money to give your character a year + edge in a time based XP system in an open world territory control PvP game. THAT is not something I support and have no problem saying so. I'd also never stop someone from coming to say they love the game and like the fact that they get to buy themselves a big character development edge. That's their call and I actually encourage them to come say so... because that's what makes the popcorn pop on forums like this. If we didn't have "WHY MY VIDEO GAME MATTERS" posts, it would be a very boring world.
The very first line from the FAQ on a page EVERYONE can easily find. I know you have a personal windmill to tilt here and it shows in your selective fact bias. I don't. I'm not going to play the game. I don't think their sub is a good deal and I wouldn't pay it even if I found the game interesting (which I don't). However, I'm not on some bent to disparage the game at every turn like you are.
I'm not here to prevent or encourage people to play the game. I'm saying that their practice isn't deceptive. They are up front about what they offer and I support their right to choose how to market and monetize their game within that framework. So yeah, people are distorting facts in their trash bashing witch-hunt. Lies or willful ignorance you choose.
This is the first phase of our launch of the game. Early Enrollment began after Alpha testing was complete. During Early Enrollment many key game features will not be implemented or will be implemented in a very basic state. Based on feedback and interaction with the players the Goblinworks team will be iterating on the design, prioritizing the order that features are added and incorporating suggestions from the community into the design.
This is a process similar to the way Minecraft and GMail were developed. We know it's not for everyone, but we're sure there are lots of players who want a front-row seat to watch an MMO being built from the ground up.
Early Enrollment will not be a "beta test" in the classic sense. The objective is not to find and fix bugs - although that will be a part of what happens during Early Enrollment. The objective is to begin with a "minimum viable product", and then expand the game in a feedback-driven process.
We release regular updates which introduce and iterate on existing features and provide polish and bug fixes. You can see a list at this link.
Maybe you shouldn't engage in Kickstarter and should read the risk assessment on the page before you throw away so much money with an expectation that a game is developed to your vision.
That is nice and all, but when the CEO says it is a complete game, that is what the company thinks it is, not some FAQ, not some forum, but directly from the head of the company.
He said it, and that is not something you or any other booster can get away from.
And having said it is a complete game, it deserves to be judged by that fact, both on the game play and quality of the product, and the business model it is being operated under.
On both of those points, many of us feel the game is lacking, and are within our rights to say as much. And in the face of an attempt at social media marketing by the CEO, one might even feel obligated to other gamers, to shed light on the actual reality of things.
When did telling the truth become fascism? Only when it is criticizing a game you like?
People keep missing the double speak in the CEO's statement,
This is not a game in any sort of "test" mode. We are not "alpha" or "beta" testing. We're in Early Enrollment - a complete game with limited features that are being iterated and expanded based on Crowdforging with our players.
A bit oxymoronic, really, you can't be complete and limited at that same time, it's one or the other.
So bottom line, they intend to "finish" the game by charging the early enrollment people a sub...vs a cash shop that other early release games do.
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
More like: we don't mind paying for a complete game. But when game companies put out half a game, while insisting it is a complete game, and then charging box+sub+cash shop, and THEN the CEO sends out their fanbois to tell people how great it is, that deserves a response.
If only to discourage the same behavior in the future.
Well now you're either lying or your being willfully ignorant. Right on their website they state the game is incomplete and rough. That is immoral.
I agree it's not worth the money. I won't pay it. I don't think the game is that good. I also find the advertising push distasteful, but it's not immoral. People need to make that distinction, between their own preferences and what is actually right and wrong.
The agenda to determine what others can and should do with amoral entertainment, like I said in the post above, amounts to fascism.
HI! Here is the statement from the PFO CEO:
This is not a game in any sort of "test" mode. We are not "alpha" or "beta" testing. We're in Early Enrollment - a complete game with limited features that are being iterated and expanded based on Crowdforging with our players.
So before you accuse others of lying or being willfully ignorant you should ASK people why they say it's a complete game and not in testing...
Again... to me the worst part is not allowing people to pay a box price, plus sub plus cash shop (some guy in the other thread talking about his $230 Small holding...) but it's the combination of that with NOT WIPING at open release. I did support the concept of the game... I paid something like $270 for multiple kickstarter accounts. I then realized that what they were in fact peddling was a system where you just paid money to give your character a year + edge in a time based XP system in an open world territory control PvP game. THAT is not something I support and have no problem saying so. I'd also never stop someone from coming to say they love the game and like the fact that they get to buy themselves a big character development edge. That's their call and I actually encourage them to come say so... because that's what makes the popcorn pop on forums like this. If we didn't have "WHY MY VIDEO GAME MATTERS" posts, it would be a very boring world.
The very first line from the FAQ on a page EVERYONE can easily find. I know you have a personal windmill to tilt here and it shows in your selective fact bias. I don't. I'm not going to play the game. I don't think their sub is a good deal and I wouldn't pay it even if I found the game interesting (which I don't). However, I'm not on some bent to disparage the game at every turn like you are.
I'm not here to prevent or encourage people to play the game. I'm saying that their practice isn't deceptive. They are up front about what they offer and I support their right to choose how to market and monetize their game within that framework. So yeah, people are distorting facts in their trash bashing witch-hunt. Lies or willful ignorance you choose.
This is the first phase of our launch of the game. Early Enrollment began after Alpha testing was complete. During Early Enrollment many key game features will not be implemented or will be implemented in a very basic state. Based on feedback and interaction with the players the Goblinworks team will be iterating on the design, prioritizing the order that features are added and incorporating suggestions from the community into the design.
This is a process similar to the way Minecraft and GMail were developed. We know it's not for everyone, but we're sure there are lots of players who want a front-row seat to watch an MMO being built from the ground up.
Early Enrollment will not be a "beta test" in the classic sense. The objective is not to find and fix bugs - although that will be a part of what happens during Early Enrollment. The objective is to begin with a "minimum viable product", and then expand the game in a feedback-driven process.
We release regular updates which introduce and iterate on existing features and provide polish and bug fixes. You can see a list at this link.
Maybe you shouldn't engage in Kickstarter and should read the risk assessment on the page before you throw away so much money with an expectation that a game is developed to your vision.
That is nice and all, but when the CEO says it is a complete game, that is what the company thinks it is, not some FAQ, not some forum, but directly from the head of the company.
He said it, and that is not something you or any other booster can get away from.
And having said it is a complete game, it deserves to be judged by that fact, both on the game play and quality of the product, and the business model it is being operated under.
On both of those points, many of us feel the game is lacking, and are within our rights to say as much. And in the face of an attempt at social media marketing by the CEO, one might even feel obligated to other gamers, to shed light on the actual reality of things.
When did telling the truth become fascism? Only when it is criticizing a game you like?
People keep missing the double speak in the CEO's statement,
This is not a game in any sort of "test" mode. We are not "alpha" or "beta" testing. We're in Early Enrollment - a complete game with limited features that are being iterated and expanded based on Crowdforging with our players.
A bit oxymoronic, really, you can't be complete and limited at that same time, it's one or the other.
So bottom line, they intend to "finish" the game by charging the early enrollment people a sub...vs a cash shop that other early release games do.
I do not say you are wrong, but when he said it is a complete game, he owns it.
He was presumably trying to not be called out for charging for an alpha, but at the same time when you call something complete, be prepared to have people hold you to that.
More like: we don't mind paying for a complete game. But when game companies put out half a game, while insisting it is a complete game, and then charging box+sub+cash shop, and THEN the CEO sends out their fanbois to tell people how great it is, that deserves a response.
If only to discourage the same behavior in the future.
Well now you're either lying or your being willfully ignorant. Right on their website they state the game is incomplete and rough. That is immoral.
I agree it's not worth the money. I won't pay it. I don't think the game is that good. I also find the advertising push distasteful, but it's not immoral. People need to make that distinction, between their own preferences and what is actually right and wrong.
The agenda to determine what others can and should do with amoral entertainment, like I said in the post above, amounts to fascism.
HI! Here is the statement from the PFO CEO:
This is not a game in any sort of "test" mode. We are not "alpha" or "beta" testing. We're in Early Enrollment - a complete game with limited features that are being iterated and expanded based on Crowdforging with our players.
So before you accuse others of lying or being willfully ignorant you should ASK people why they say it's a complete game and not in testing...
Again... to me the worst part is not allowing people to pay a box price, plus sub plus cash shop (some guy in the other thread talking about his $230 Small holding...) but it's the combination of that with NOT WIPING at open release. I did support the concept of the game... I paid something like $270 for multiple kickstarter accounts. I then realized that what they were in fact peddling was a system where you just paid money to give your character a year + edge in a time based XP system in an open world territory control PvP game. THAT is not something I support and have no problem saying so. I'd also never stop someone from coming to say they love the game and like the fact that they get to buy themselves a big character development edge. That's their call and I actually encourage them to come say so... because that's what makes the popcorn pop on forums like this. If we didn't have "WHY MY VIDEO GAME MATTERS" posts, it would be a very boring world.
The very first line from the FAQ on a page EVERYONE can easily find. I know you have a personal windmill to tilt here and it shows in your selective fact bias. I don't. I'm not going to play the game. I don't think their sub is a good deal and I wouldn't pay it even if I found the game interesting (which I don't). However, I'm not on some bent to disparage the game at every turn like you are.
I'm not here to prevent or encourage people to play the game. I'm saying that their practice isn't deceptive. They are up front about what they offer and I support their right to choose how to market and monetize their game within that framework. So yeah, people are distorting facts in their trash bashing witch-hunt. Lies or willful ignorance you choose.
This is the first phase of our launch of the game. Early Enrollment began after Alpha testing was complete. During Early Enrollment many key game features will not be implemented or will be implemented in a very basic state. Based on feedback and interaction with the players the Goblinworks team will be iterating on the design, prioritizing the order that features are added and incorporating suggestions from the community into the design.
This is a process similar to the way Minecraft and GMail were developed. We know it's not for everyone, but we're sure there are lots of players who want a front-row seat to watch an MMO being built from the ground up.
Early Enrollment will not be a "beta test" in the classic sense. The objective is not to find and fix bugs - although that will be a part of what happens during Early Enrollment. The objective is to begin with a "minimum viable product", and then expand the game in a feedback-driven process.
We release regular updates which introduce and iterate on existing features and provide polish and bug fixes. You can see a list at this link.
Maybe you shouldn't engage in Kickstarter and should read the risk assessment on the page before you throw away so much money with an expectation that a game is developed to your vision.
That is nice and all, but when the CEO says it is a complete game, that is what the company thinks it is, not some FAQ, not some forum, but directly from the head of the company.
He said it, and that is not something you or any other booster can get away from.
And having said it is a complete game, it deserves to be judged by that fact, both on the game play and quality of the product, and the business model it is being operated under.
On both of those points, many of us feel the game is lacking, and are within our rights to say as much. And in the face of an attempt at social media marketing by the CEO, one might even feel obligated to other gamers, to shed light on the actual reality of things.
When did telling the truth become fascism? Only when it is criticizing a game you like?
I have a hard time based on your typical posts, assuming you're one of those people actually playing this game. If those people feel slighted, then yes they should speak up. The problem is with someone like slapshot they don't sound like a slighted customer, they sound more like someone with a greater agenda. I don't want to make this about him personally, more so that type of poster, and what they post. He makes it personal, attempting to sour the reader toward the people behind the scenes, not the game or monetary practices, he did the same thing with MO... This to me comes off as a competitors mole, more so than a legitimate poster.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I have a hard time based on your typical posts, assuming you're one of those people actually playing this game. If those people feel slighted, then yes they should speak up. The problem is with someone like slapshot they don't sound like a slighted customer, they sound more like someone with a greater agenda. I don't want to make this about him personally, more so that type of poster, and what they post. He makes it personal, attempting to sour the reader toward the people behind the scenes, not the game or monetary practices, he did the same thing with MO... This to me comes off as a competitors mole, more so than a legitimate poster.
Yup. 3 games have earned my ire: Mortal Online, GreedMonger and Pathfidner Online. I'm a super spy for a game competing against the lowest of the low. You have outed me.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
People keep missing the double speak in the CEO's statement,
This is not a game in any sort of "test" mode. We are not "alpha" or "beta" testing. We're in Early Enrollment - a complete game with limited features that are being iterated and expanded based on Crowdforging with our players.
A bit oxymoronic, really, you can't be complete and limited at that same time, it's one or the other.
So bottom line, they intend to "finish" the game by charging the early enrollment people a sub...vs a cash shop that other early release games do.
This is my issue and people saying we just want to access the game for free is just plain silly. My concern is the way the game industry is changing while many out there just bend over and say "jam it in". We have early access on steam where there is no promise a game will actually be finished and no recourse of getting our money back. Just check out the forums for a game called StarForge and see the rage there. We have MMO's "launching" in poor quality, bug-ridden states but its ok because we are calling it "early enrollment" or a "foundation release" when really it is just a developer launching early because they need money.
There is nothing different between what is going on now with PO and any other game that has ever beta tested. There are no polls on the forums to ask the users to prioritize what they want to see added next, there is no open chat to get user feedback and develop a plan based on that. There is just a bunch of crap on the website that says "The objective is to begin with a "minimum viable product", and then expand the game in a feedback-driven process." How are they getting this feedback differently than any other developer did? How is what they are doing any different from any other games beta testing? Its not, but the CEO says "This is not a game in any sort of "test" mode. We are not "alpha" or "beta" testing. We're in Early Enrollment - a complete game with limited features that are being iterated and expanded based on Crowdforging with our players." but how is this different from any other game development process? Why make up fancy names like "early enrollment" when you are not doing anything different? The name is only used to give the impression that they are doing things differently and justify the current sub fee when in fact any other developer would call this a testing phase and not be charging.
I agree they have the right to do what they want and in no way do I feel this is a scam. I do have an issue with developers trying to find new ways of releasing games early, lacking content and full of bugs while making up new names to give the impression they are full complete versions of the game. How the CEO can say his game is currently "complete" is laughable at best. Go read their own forum about all the bugs and missing features and then tell me it is ok for him to represent his product as "complete".
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
I have a hard time based on your typical posts, assuming you're one of those people actually playing this game. If those people feel slighted, then yes they should speak up. The problem is with someone like slapshot they don't sound like a slighted customer, they sound more like someone with a greater agenda. I don't want to make this about him personally, more so that type of poster, and what they post. He makes it personal, attempting to sour the reader toward the people behind the scenes, not the game or monetary practices, he did the same thing with MO... This to me comes off as a competitors mole, more so than a legitimate poster.
A lot of people have an issue with Slappy but I find him quite helpful. You see, Slapshot does the homework, digs into the research and doesnt hold back. He is not posting about many other games as most are credible. He does post about things he thinks raises a red flag and he has been dead on with Mortal Online and Greed Monger. He is not personal in his attacks and if you look at his posts you will see he has no problem asking the CEO very direct questions about solid issues.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
I think that the FAQ and the quote the game are complete are mutually compatible.
The game isn't finished. It's complete. Complete is a word with a meaning in the context of MMOs (which are never finished). It means the game has the minimum necessary game systems to fulfill its game loop.
You can craft, harvest resources, erect structures, and exchange value (sale, trade, or theft). That's a complete game.
But it's a long, long way from "finished". It's a long way from a milestone I'd call "competitive with traditionally developed MMOs". But for a segment of the player population it is already complex enough to be fun to play and thus for that segment it's a fair value to pay to play it.
I think that the FAQ and the quote the game are complete are mutually compatible.
The game isn't finished. It's complete. Complete is a word with a meaning in the context of MMOs (which are never finished). It means the game has the minimum necessary game systems to fulfill its game loop.
You can craft, harvest resources, erect structures, and exchange value (sale, trade, or theft). That's a complete game.
But it's a long, long way from "finished". It's a long way from a milestone I'd call "competitive with traditionally developed MMOs". But for a segment of the player population it is already complex enough to be fun to play and thus for that segment it's a fair value to pay to play it.
With all due respect but that segment is extremely small, enough that one has to wonder if the game is going anywhere.......I won't hold my breath.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
The game isn't finished. It's complete. Complete is a word with a meaning in the context of MMOs (which are never finished). It means the game has the minimum necessary game systems to fulfill its game loop.
Hi!!
Are you trying to redefine more words now? So now your game is complete but not finished (with the standard MMOs are never finished line..) Because I'm pretty sure that COMPLETE and FINISH are synonyms in the English language. As a matter of fact, Mr. Webster agrees:
But for a segment of the player population it is already complex enough to be fun to play and thus for that segment it's a fair value to pay to play it.
This part I would agree with!
All I would add is that it is a VERY small segment. From your very own Kickstarter you talked about LIMITING Early Enrollment to something like 4500 players a month for at LEAST 9 months (that's close, I don't want to look it up again). You said that was your MVP and people like me shouldn't get to define what a Minimal Viable Product is. I agreed and we both said that the MARKET would decide. Well, I think the market has spoken as I am fairly sure that your current active player base is FAR, FAR lower. Do you still feel that you accurately gauged what the MARKET would support as a Minimal Viable Product? Because I really, really think you missed the boat and even most people playing would PROBABLY agree that the population is very low and not what they would hope for.
Today is a weekend day, right after you had a recent launch of new game mechanics with Feuding etc... Can you tell us what the peak concurrent player count was today?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
We follow current industry standards and don't disclose subscriber or activity numbers.
I will say that I am not happy with the number of people who we have active in the game and that we have fewer people playing than I anticipated at this time.
I think that the FAQ and the quote the game are complete are mutually compatible.
The game isn't finished. It's complete. Complete is a word with a meaning in the context of MMOs (which are never finished). It means the game has the minimum necessary game systems to fulfill its game loop.
You can craft, harvest resources, erect structures, and exchange value (sale, trade, or theft). That's a complete game.
But it's a long, long way from "finished". It's a long way from a milestone I'd call "competitive with traditionally developed MMOs". But for a segment of the player population it is already complex enough to be fun to play and thus for that segment it's a fair value to pay to play it.
I would like to know how your version of "early enrollment" is different from other games conducting alpha/beta testing? Every other game I know of has had forums and used them in the exact same fashion you are using them. How are you soliciting feedback and incorporating "crowdsource" more than any other game developer has?
Dont other games continue to improve and add features during alpha/beta testing? I was in the beta for Firefall when the medic was radically changed from using a healing beam to becoming more of a DPS. I was in other betas were parts of the map were opened or features were added or improved. How is what you are doing in your "early enrollment" in any way different from that? I have seen your forums and you are not soliciting feedback in any manner differently from any other developer I have experienced. Where is it you are asking your crowd (paying customers) for feedback on what they want added next? Isnt that what your website says here:
"Based on feedback and interaction with the players the Goblinworks team will be iterating on the design, prioritizing the order that features are added and incorporating suggestions from the community into the design."
I dont see any evidence that your team has prioritized any order of features given by the players. Where is your poll asking players what features they want in the game next and then your response showing you will listen? Where is your list of features the crowd voted for and how many voted? I see you and your team telling people what is being done and then doing it. Sure you might listen to some ideas on the forums afterwards to improve what was already added but how is that different that what anyone else has done?
I dont think you are a scammer or trying to get away with anything shady other than using wordplay to justify charging people money for access to the testing process. If you just stopped denying that, by any existing standard, your game would be considered in the alpha/beta testing phase and make that clear on your website, most of us would be happy. Or you can show us how what you are doing is in fact different from what any other company has done which would justify using a new word (early enrollment) and payment model to describe it. But be warned... if you just present a few forum posts as evidence, I will show you three other forum posts from other developers that did the same thing you are doing in their testing phase.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
We follow current industry standards and don't disclose subscriber or activity numbers.
I will say that I am not happy with, the number of people who we have active in the game and that we have fewer people playing than I anticipated at this time.
You have said "We are following industry standards", but I can show you the inaccuracy of that statement with the most prominent and appropriate example.... EvE Online will tell you exactly how many pilots are online, for the past 15 minute time period. But that is really not important since you at least admit that the population numbers of PFO are below what you hoped for.
What you attribute that low population to is far more important, and will likely determine what may be within the realm of possibilities of rectifying the problem.
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
To address the rest of your post, I'm not asking you for a reason, you asked us and we gave it to you. We dont like when a game developer charges to be a tester while calling it another name. If they just said, we have a game in testing and if you want in to help you have to pay a monthly fee I would be ok with it and THEN your points would be valid. I have a problem when the CEO of the company says they are not in any testing phase and not missing anything that would add to the game when clearly that is not the case.
I also find it odd that you want to debate this deliberate wordplay when earlier today you posted in another topic that "Yellow means yellow, and blue means blue. If someone starts calling yellow things "blue" recently, then there's no way you can call it miscommunication for someone to point out that's the wrong use of the word."http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/6668127#6668127
Is that not what is happening here? We have a CEO saying the game is NOT in any form of testing and is not missing anything that would add to gameplay and calling it "early enrollment" when if you have read anything about the game you would see they are indeed testing and the game is about a year away from release. How is that any different from you debating the misuse of the term MMO in your thread?
You say "gamers shouldn't support making "MMO" a useless term that doesn't provide information" and then come here and argue when other gamers are against calling the testing phase early enrollment and pretending like testing should no longer be used to describe a part of the game creation cycle. How is your point any more valid than the one we are making? Testing is testing and massively is massively, you are on different sides of the same argument in different threads.
Let's be honest: the name isn't what's at stake here, players just want a free game.
If we're honest we'd admit that calling it a "$39.99 Testers' Package" would provoke far more complaints than "early enrollment".
I suspect you are employed by Golblinworks or are a died-in-the-wool fanboi.
"Players just want a free game."
Lol. Players don't want to pay a monthly fee for a game in alpha. Especially when they are trying to coerce you to pay because it will give you a pay-to-win advantage (due to skill leveling in the game) over those who start when the game is in a presentable state.
It's really not a hard concept to understand. You should try it!
Originally posted by caldeathe I really fail to understand the need of some people to save the rest of us from our decisions. We all make mistakes, and it's possible that my time spent playing (and Paying for) PFO will end with a whimper. But same of us enjoy the game, and are perfectly happy to spend out money on it, both for the moment, and for the possibility of something better. Three decades ago my brother was spending more on alcohol every month than I have spent in total after two years on PFO. I thought he was dumb to do so. I wasn't afraid to point out the results to other people, but I didn't feel like it was my personal crusade to make sure that no one else ever spends any money on alcohol. I don't think that problem drinkers are going to destroy social drinking for all of us.
come back when you have to donate your brother a kidney later in life....you might change your mind. theres a difference between binge drinking and social drinking.
regardless your story is bad analogy for the situation.
using the beer analogy
its more like PFO is a brewery selling an extremely watered down beer at above market price per volume. then justifying it because a) it contains alcohol (thus a minimum viable product) and b) the brewery is small so adding less alcohol per bottle is a cost cutting measure.
We follow current industry standards and don't disclose subscriber or activity numbers.
I will say that I am not happy with the number of people who we have active in the game and that we have fewer people playing than I anticipated at this time.
Strange, because back in January on these very forums you said:
We'll likely do a blog post with numbers in the future, but I can share that the number is not as small as "hundreds". And the number is growing every day so whatever the number is on any given day, it will be larger the next day. That's a very, very good sign.
Our short term goal is to get to 10,000 active players. Compared to the total size of the MMO market that is a drop in the bucket. We had 4,291 accounts created for Early Enrollment from the Kickstarter and that doesn't include Guild and Buddy packages that haven't yet distributed all their invites.
So... I guess "current industry standards" changed between January and now and that's why you never did the blog post with the numbers. I'm sure that's it and it's not because the active playing population has fallen off a cliff....
Anyhow, I'm glad to see you at least admit that the number of players is lower than you expected. It means that HOPEFULLY, you will get the message that what you thought was a Minimally Viable Product was not seen as such by the gaming population at large. yes, we agree there is that small segment that does, but obviously not what you thought. Now I am happy not because I get to say I was right, but because it gives YOU a chance to step back and re-evaluate what i think is a horrendous business plan. I put a post on these forums a few days ago with some advice. First off you need to simplify this crazy payment structure you have. Ditch the Box fee. Ditch the Cash Shop. Ditch the "Buddy Key" system and just let people request a trial on your website. All it does is clutter up your Reddit page for what? 20 key requests in the last 2 weeks? 20 buddy keys are not going to make or break an MMO...
I believe that if you do those things you will dramatically improve your odds. Then, we still have the difference over the no server wipe and again I believe that you are seriously misjudging the gaming population. Just like the MVP situation, I think you have made a horrible decision with not wiping. If you streamlined your fee structure AND ditched the crazy no wipe at "Open Enrollment" concept... you would find that the general tenor of conversation surrounding your game would change. You would no longer be the guy charging a box fee + sub + cash shop + promising no wipe at Open Launch in an open world territory control PvP game. You would just be that crazy little niche game that maybe, just maybe people could root for.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
People keep missing the double speak in the CEO's statement,
This is not a game in any sort of "test" mode. We are not "alpha" or "beta" testing. We're in Early Enrollment - a complete game with limited features that are being iterated and expanded based on Crowdforging with our players.
A bit oxymoronic, really, you can't be complete and limited at that same time, it's one or the other.
So bottom line, they intend to "finish" the game by charging the early enrollment people a sub...vs a cash shop that other early release games do.
not only that but a product can't be a "minimum viable product" and be completed at the same time. a MVP is by definition a marketing strategy using prototyping for data acquisition and analysis while spending as little money as possible.
its basically an alternative to having a large marketing department and multiple proof of concept phases.
a good example of a MVP would be Mindcraft's long ass alpha/beta where early adopters recieved essentially a prototype copy of the game for a fraction of the release cost.
In practice GW should be taking the data gathered from the minimum viable product phase and making changes before releasing(and charging) for a "completed" product . The fact that CEO has a smaller then expected player base means A) whoever was in charge of marketing made a major mistake analyzing the MVP data, or the people in charge of making decisions have their head in the sand and ignored said data.
Comments
That about sums it up.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That is nice and all, but when the CEO says it is a complete game, that is what the company thinks it is, not some FAQ, not some forum, but directly from the head of the company.
He said it, and that is not something you or any other booster can get away from.
And having said it is a complete game, it deserves to be judged by that fact, both on the game play and quality of the product, and the business model it is being operated under.
On both of those points, many of us feel the game is lacking, and are within our rights to say as much. And in the face of an attempt at social media marketing by the CEO, one might even feel obligated to other gamers, to shed light on the actual reality of things.
When did telling the truth become fascism? Only when it is criticizing a game you like?
People keep missing the double speak in the CEO's statement,
This is not a game in any sort of "test" mode. We are not "alpha" or "beta" testing. We're in Early Enrollment - a complete game with limited features that are being iterated and expanded based on Crowdforging with our players.
A bit oxymoronic, really, you can't be complete and limited at that same time, it's one or the other.
So bottom line, they intend to "finish" the game by charging the early enrollment people a sub...vs a cash shop that other early release games do.
"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
I do not say you are wrong, but when he said it is a complete game, he owns it.
He was presumably trying to not be called out for charging for an alpha, but at the same time when you call something complete, be prepared to have people hold you to that.
I have a hard time based on your typical posts, assuming you're one of those people actually playing this game. If those people feel slighted, then yes they should speak up. The problem is with someone like slapshot they don't sound like a slighted customer, they sound more like someone with a greater agenda. I don't want to make this about him personally, more so that type of poster, and what they post. He makes it personal, attempting to sour the reader toward the people behind the scenes, not the game or monetary practices, he did the same thing with MO... This to me comes off as a competitors mole, more so than a legitimate poster.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Yup. 3 games have earned my ire: Mortal Online, GreedMonger and Pathfidner Online. I'm a super spy for a game competing against the lowest of the low. You have outed me.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
This is my issue and people saying we just want to access the game for free is just plain silly. My concern is the way the game industry is changing while many out there just bend over and say "jam it in". We have early access on steam where there is no promise a game will actually be finished and no recourse of getting our money back. Just check out the forums for a game called StarForge and see the rage there. We have MMO's "launching" in poor quality, bug-ridden states but its ok because we are calling it "early enrollment" or a "foundation release" when really it is just a developer launching early because they need money.
There is nothing different between what is going on now with PO and any other game that has ever beta tested. There are no polls on the forums to ask the users to prioritize what they want to see added next, there is no open chat to get user feedback and develop a plan based on that. There is just a bunch of crap on the website that says "The objective is to begin with a "minimum viable product", and then expand the game in a feedback-driven process." How are they getting this feedback differently than any other developer did? How is what they are doing any different from any other games beta testing? Its not, but the CEO says "This is not a game in any sort of "test" mode. We are not "alpha" or "beta" testing. We're in Early Enrollment - a complete game with limited features that are being iterated and expanded based on Crowdforging with our players." but how is this different from any other game development process? Why make up fancy names like "early enrollment" when you are not doing anything different? The name is only used to give the impression that they are doing things differently and justify the current sub fee when in fact any other developer would call this a testing phase and not be charging.
I agree they have the right to do what they want and in no way do I feel this is a scam. I do have an issue with developers trying to find new ways of releasing games early, lacking content and full of bugs while making up new names to give the impression they are full complete versions of the game. How the CEO can say his game is currently "complete" is laughable at best. Go read their own forum about all the bugs and missing features and then tell me it is ok for him to represent his product as "complete".
A lot of people have an issue with Slappy but I find him quite helpful. You see, Slapshot does the homework, digs into the research and doesnt hold back. He is not posting about many other games as most are credible. He does post about things he thinks raises a red flag and he has been dead on with Mortal Online and Greed Monger. He is not personal in his attacks and if you look at his posts you will see he has no problem asking the CEO very direct questions about solid issues.
I think that the FAQ and the quote the game are complete are mutually compatible.
The game isn't finished. It's complete. Complete is a word with a meaning in the context of MMOs (which are never finished). It means the game has the minimum necessary game systems to fulfill its game loop.
You can craft, harvest resources, erect structures, and exchange value (sale, trade, or theft). That's a complete game.
But it's a long, long way from "finished". It's a long way from a milestone I'd call "competitive with traditionally developed MMOs". But for a segment of the player population it is already complex enough to be fun to play and thus for that segment it's a fair value to pay to play it.
With all due respect but that segment is extremely small, enough that one has to wonder if the game is going anywhere.......I won't hold my breath.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Hi!!
Are you trying to redefine more words now? So now your game is complete but not finished (with the standard MMOs are never finished line..) Because I'm pretty sure that COMPLETE and FINISH are synonyms in the English language. As a matter of fact, Mr. Webster agrees:
complete
Synonyms
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Is World of Warcraft "finished"?
This part I would agree with!
All I would add is that it is a VERY small segment. From your very own Kickstarter you talked about LIMITING Early Enrollment to something like 4500 players a month for at LEAST 9 months (that's close, I don't want to look it up again). You said that was your MVP and people like me shouldn't get to define what a Minimal Viable Product is. I agreed and we both said that the MARKET would decide. Well, I think the market has spoken as I am fairly sure that your current active player base is FAR, FAR lower. Do you still feel that you accurately gauged what the MARKET would support as a Minimal Viable Product? Because I really, really think you missed the boat and even most people playing would PROBABLY agree that the population is very low and not what they would hope for.
Today is a weekend day, right after you had a recent launch of new game mechanics with Feuding etc... Can you tell us what the peak concurrent player count was today?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
We follow current industry standards and don't disclose subscriber or activity numbers.
I will say that I am not happy with the number of people who we have active in the game and that we have fewer people playing than I anticipated at this time.
I would like to know how your version of "early enrollment" is different from other games conducting alpha/beta testing? Every other game I know of has had forums and used them in the exact same fashion you are using them. How are you soliciting feedback and incorporating "crowdsource" more than any other game developer has?
Dont other games continue to improve and add features during alpha/beta testing? I was in the beta for Firefall when the medic was radically changed from using a healing beam to becoming more of a DPS. I was in other betas were parts of the map were opened or features were added or improved. How is what you are doing in your "early enrollment" in any way different from that? I have seen your forums and you are not soliciting feedback in any manner differently from any other developer I have experienced. Where is it you are asking your crowd (paying customers) for feedback on what they want added next? Isnt that what your website says here:
"Based on feedback and interaction with the players the Goblinworks team will be iterating on the design, prioritizing the order that features are added and incorporating suggestions from the community into the design."
I dont see any evidence that your team has prioritized any order of features given by the players. Where is your poll asking players what features they want in the game next and then your response showing you will listen? Where is your list of features the crowd voted for and how many voted? I see you and your team telling people what is being done and then doing it. Sure you might listen to some ideas on the forums afterwards to improve what was already added but how is that different that what anyone else has done?
I dont think you are a scammer or trying to get away with anything shady other than using wordplay to justify charging people money for access to the testing process. If you just stopped denying that, by any existing standard, your game would be considered in the alpha/beta testing phase and make that clear on your website, most of us would be happy. Or you can show us how what you are doing is in fact different from what any other company has done which would justify using a new word (early enrollment) and payment model to describe it. But be warned... if you just present a few forum posts as evidence, I will show you three other forum posts from other developers that did the same thing you are doing in their testing phase.
You have said "We are following industry standards", but I can show you the inaccuracy of that statement with the most prominent and appropriate example.... EvE Online will tell you exactly how many pilots are online, for the past 15 minute time period. But that is really not important since you at least admit that the population numbers of PFO are below what you hoped for.
What you attribute that low population to is far more important, and will likely determine what may be within the realm of possibilities of rectifying the problem.
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
I suspect you are employed by Golblinworks or are a died-in-the-wool fanboi.
"Players just want a free game."
Lol. Players don't want to pay a monthly fee for a game in alpha. Especially when they are trying to coerce you to pay because it will give you a pay-to-win advantage (due to skill leveling in the game) over those who start when the game is in a presentable state.
It's really not a hard concept to understand. You should try it!
come back when you have to donate your brother a kidney later in life....you might change your mind. theres a difference between binge drinking and social drinking.
regardless your story is bad analogy for the situation.
using the beer analogy
its more like PFO is a brewery selling an extremely watered down beer at above market price per volume. then justifying it because a) it contains alcohol (thus a minimum viable product) and b) the brewery is small so adding less alcohol per bottle is a cost cutting measure.
How?
Keep in mind "it makes us pay for a product!" is not a valid answer.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Strange, because back in January on these very forums you said:
We'll likely do a blog post with numbers in the future, but I can share that the number is not as small as "hundreds". And the number is growing every day so whatever the number is on any given day, it will be larger the next day. That's a very, very good sign.
Our short term goal is to get to 10,000 active players. Compared to the total size of the MMO market that is a drop in the bucket. We had 4,291 accounts created for Early Enrollment from the Kickstarter and that doesn't include Guild and Buddy packages that haven't yet distributed all their invites.
So... I guess "current industry standards" changed between January and now and that's why you never did the blog post with the numbers. I'm sure that's it and it's not because the active playing population has fallen off a cliff....
Anyhow, I'm glad to see you at least admit that the number of players is lower than you expected. It means that HOPEFULLY, you will get the message that what you thought was a Minimally Viable Product was not seen as such by the gaming population at large. yes, we agree there is that small segment that does, but obviously not what you thought. Now I am happy not because I get to say I was right, but because it gives YOU a chance to step back and re-evaluate what i think is a horrendous business plan. I put a post on these forums a few days ago with some advice. First off you need to simplify this crazy payment structure you have. Ditch the Box fee. Ditch the Cash Shop. Ditch the "Buddy Key" system and just let people request a trial on your website. All it does is clutter up your Reddit page for what? 20 key requests in the last 2 weeks? 20 buddy keys are not going to make or break an MMO...
I believe that if you do those things you will dramatically improve your odds. Then, we still have the difference over the no server wipe and again I believe that you are seriously misjudging the gaming population. Just like the MVP situation, I think you have made a horrible decision with not wiping. If you streamlined your fee structure AND ditched the crazy no wipe at "Open Enrollment" concept... you would find that the general tenor of conversation surrounding your game would change. You would no longer be the guy charging a box fee + sub + cash shop + promising no wipe at Open Launch in an open world territory control PvP game. You would just be that crazy little niche game that maybe, just maybe people could root for.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
not only that but a product can't be a "minimum viable product" and be completed at the same time. a MVP is by definition a marketing strategy using prototyping for data acquisition and analysis while spending as little money as possible.
its basically an alternative to having a large marketing department and multiple proof of concept phases.
a good example of a MVP would be Mindcraft's long ass alpha/beta where early adopters recieved essentially a prototype copy of the game for a fraction of the release cost.
In practice GW should be taking the data gathered from the minimum viable product phase and making changes before releasing(and charging) for a "completed" product . The fact that CEO has a smaller then expected player base means A) whoever was in charge of marketing made a major mistake analyzing the MVP data, or
the people in charge of making decisions have their head in the sand and ignored said data.