Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

[Editorial] General: The Beta Is a Lie

2456

Comments

  • tawesstawess Member EpicPosts: 4,227
    Originally posted by olepi
    Originally posted by tawess
    Originally posted by Dogblaster
    well written .. open beta is just an excuse for bugs and flaws the game has.

    But as i said.. At least they are open with it and not trying to hide it (as was the way before... I look at you Champion Online, with friends ofc)

     

    What are they "hiding" Olepi... It is in bold letter... BETA... as in not done yet... invest at your own risk.

    Do you have to buy the car before taking a test drive? Why won't they let you drive it first, and then decide to pay?

    Why charge for something that isn't finished? Do you pay for a meal that isn't fully cooked?

    Taking NW as an example: they have clearly released the game for the masses to play, and they are charging to play it. But they still want to call it beta, why? I think it is because they know the game isn't done, and has a lot of bugs, and they wouldn't be able to release it as is unless they could keep changing it. So they want the full benefit of release and charges, but also want the benefit of "hiding" the unfinished parts and the bugs behind the term "beta".

    Car... car..? No company let you drive the car before it is done due to automotive safety.

     

    As for the foods example it is more like being able to have early access to meals while the chef perfects the dish.. you will not have as good of a meal as the finished product but you will be able to eat it before the regular customer.

    But you did not answer my question (just rested your opinion)  would not releasing the game with the bugs be "hiding" it and you might be tricked to pay for a incomplete product. With the beta tag you know the game is not done and you can invest accordingly.

     

     

    This have been a good conversation

  • TheDarkrayneTheDarkrayne Member EpicPosts: 5,297
    Originally posted by pmiles

    Using kickstarter to get players to fund actual development of a game is far more disturbing than having some developer call their launch a beta.  We've gone from just buying a game when it's done (box/retail shelf), to prepaying for beta access, to now, actually funding the development of the game.  The only one's paying out of the ass are the players.  What's next, putting in a bid to developers to see if they feel your request for a new title is even worth their time and effort?

    I'd like to see the days of old where you know, game developers were on the down low about what they were working on and you only actually got to see it when it was released.  No more of this pre-pre-pre-super-duper-awesome-first-look-pass purchasing scams.  When you have a product, release it, we'll buy it.  If it is decent, you'll earn return to cover your investment.

    People talk about there being no consequences to death in games... what consequences do developers risk if you already paid for it's development.  Even if it's total crap, they lose nothing.  If it's mediocre, it's total profit.  How does this model encourage them to do better?  It doesn't.  Only if their is risk of loss is their motivation to succeed.

    Both are disturbing and both need to go away. It's a mess and the masses seem to be loving it.

    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
  • olepiolepi Member EpicPosts: 2,805
    Originally posted by tawess
    Originally posted by olepi
    Originally posted by tawess
    Originally posted by Dogblaster
    well written .. open beta is just an excuse for bugs and flaws the game has.

    But as i said.. At least they are open with it and not trying to hide it (as was the way before... I look at you Champion Online, with friends ofc)

     

    What are they "hiding" Olepi... It is in bold letter... BETA... as in not done yet... invest at your own risk.

    Do you have to buy the car before taking a test drive? Why won't they let you drive it first, and then decide to pay?

    Why charge for something that isn't finished? Do you pay for a meal that isn't fully cooked?

    Taking NW as an example: they have clearly released the game for the masses to play, and they are charging to play it. But they still want to call it beta, why? I think it is because they know the game isn't done, and has a lot of bugs, and they wouldn't be able to release it as is unless they could keep changing it. So they want the full benefit of release and charges, but also want the benefit of "hiding" the unfinished parts and the bugs behind the term "beta".

    Car... car..? No company let you drive the car before it is done due to automotive safety.

     

    As for the foods example it is more like being able to have early access to meals while the chef perfects the dish.. you will not have as good of a meal as the finished product but you will be able to eat it before the regular customer.

    But you did not answer my question (just rested your opinion)  would not releasing the game with the bugs be "hiding" it and you might be tricked to pay for a incomplete product. With the beta tag you know the game is not done and you can invest accordingly.

     

     


    And therein lies the devolution of MMO's; companies now think it is quite alright to release, yes release, and charge for games that are incomplete and buggy. And they do this on purpose, by using the label "beta". Do you think there will be a massive new release of NW for the "official" release date? That when they actually release the real product, that it will be dramatically better and different than the beta?

    Or is calling it "beta" just an excuse to release early, with all the bugs and unfinished content, and charge for it?

    ------------
    2024: 47 years on the Net.


  • pmilespmiles Member Posts: 383
    Originally posted by PulsarMan
    Originally posted by pmiles

    Using kickstarter to get players to fund actual development of a game is far more disturbing than having some developer call their launch a beta.  We've gone from just buying a game when it's done (box/retail shelf), to prepaying for beta access, to now, actually funding the development of the game.  The only one's paying out of the ass are the players.  What's next, putting in a bid to developers to see if they feel your request for a new title is even worth their time and effort?

     

    I'd like to see the days of old where you know, game developers were on the down low about what they were working on and you only actually got to see it when it was released.  No more of this pre-pre-pre-super-duper-awesome-first-look-pass purchasing scams.  When you have a product, release it, we'll buy it.  If it is decent, you'll earn return to cover your investment.

     

    People talk about there being no consequences to death in games... what consequences do developers risk if you already paid for it's development.  Even if it's total crap, they lose nothing.  If it's mediocre, it's total profit.  How does this model encourage them to do better?  It doesn't.  Only if their is risk of loss is their motivation to succeed.

    I see the points you're making. But you're only focusing on the negative side of things. 

    Programs such as Kickstarter are allowing games that would never be developed in the old Dev / Publisher setting, to see the light of day. Along with that we must remember that no one is forcing anyone to donate to a kickstarter, or purchase an "Early Access", or Foundry pack...or whatever they choose to call it. 

    If you pay $100 for an early access pack, and are handed a turd...yeah, you got screwed. But to assume the developer has nothing to lose is a bit near sighted. How many of us are going to purchase the next big title from The WarZ developers? Not I. 

    Again, your points are valid. But we have to remember that the development atmosphere of today is rather different than it once was. Games cost a great deal more to produce. The risk is much higher. Were I a development studio, I would very readily support the numerous methods in which I can buffer that risk. If I had my customer crap, it would be a safe assumption to assume that my next project would not be so easily funded. If funded at all. 

    Used to cost 15 cents for a cup of coffee... now they charge you $1 or more... that's cost of living adjustment and marketing.  We pay more for games for the same reason.  Average computer game costs $60 retail compared to say $25 in the 80s.  They are being compensated for those costs.  That can be recouped in box costs and it is.  We're paying beyond box costs.

     

    If a game won't see light of day without us funding it... meaning the boys with the deep pockets don't see a profit in it to justify producing it... then perhaps the rule of survival of the fittest is in play.  If it really was worthy... wouldn't they see the need to invest in it?  If it's a case of wanting to be their own boss... well there are plenty of examples where people developed their own game on their own dime and time... takes freaking forever and a lot of dedication but it can be done.  People offer their services for free to get the work done.  Game gets made.  Wasn't about funding peoples paychecks but about making something they wanted to make.  Kickstarter is in-between the two... they still want to get paid and make a profit first... game is just a means to get there.

  • rygard49rygard49 Member UncommonPosts: 973
    Well written, couldn't agree more. Once you start taking money and treating the game as if it's a finished product, it's launched. It irks me that F2P companies try to have it both ways; taking the cash, but hiding behind the shield of "beta" when flaws are presented.
  • ManestreamManestream Member UncommonPosts: 941
    Have to agree, As soon as the game started taking money for item store purchase's then in my opinion its released.
    It would be like asking you to pay a monthly fee to play the game but we will still call it a beta version of which that would not have gone down well.
    I do not like cash shops as I have seen friends spend a hell of a lot in them over a period that easily works out to 3x or more than what a monthly subscription would have cost. At least with a monthly fee you know exactly how much and how long you have with the game before you next need to delve into your pocket.

    My opinion of these would be something like :-
    P2P - Best option, know where you stand
    P2p-F2P - failed P2P games trying to milk the left over playerbase for as much as they can.
    F2P - Games that have been deamed not worthy of having a monthly sub or want to immediatlly start milking the players for as much and as fast as they can before the game collapse's

    Would like to see existing P2P games take up the option of cutting their fee by 30-40% first before going down the F2P. Many players can afford 1 game and if they are constantly playing the 1 they WILL tend to get bored quicker and start drifting around other games. If the fee was dropped by that maybe they will pay for 2 subscription games a month.
  • cheeseheadscheeseheads Member UncommonPosts: 73
    agree 100%.   Open beta is just an excuse for companies to hide behind for the not ready game.  but still take our money.   its funny though to go onto a games forums thats in open beta and say this.  wow the fanboys attack you hard :)   
  • BattlerockBattlerock Member CommonPosts: 1,393
    The money in an f2p title is generated right out the gate,hype takes control you make impulse purchases through microtrans the producers make a judgement call and either walk or stay. If there is good momentum they stay. If not they take the money and run. This is why I like sub based games it keeps them honest and gives them incentive to build the game and create some longevity.
  • RazeeksterRazeekster Member UncommonPosts: 2,591
    PWI's cash shop prices have always been outrageous. I don't usually tend to play their games because of this. I mean come on, $40 mounts?! Most F2P games price their mounts anywhere from $10-$20. $40 is just showing blatant greediness.

    Smile

  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,881

    I agree. I think "open beta" has became more like a fancy way for saying "It's new and just released! Come check it out!", instead of having anything to do with testing any more.

    I think MMORPG.com should do their reviews when game allows first players to start spending either purchased gametime (in case of P2P games), or consumables purchased with real money (in case of F2P games with cash shop).

     
  • olepiolepi Member EpicPosts: 2,805

    Sir, the car's not ready yet, it barely runs at all. But we have lots of people who want to test-drive it now! What should we do?

    Son, just call it a "beta-test" drive; if anyone complains about how there's no windows, no A/C, and the brakes only work 1/2 the time, just point to the "beta" sticker on the windshield.

    Oh, but be sure to charge full price anyway.

    ------------
    2024: 47 years on the Net.


  • KenFisherKenFisher Member UncommonPosts: 5,035

    In my eyes, when they start taking money, it's released.

     


    Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security.  I don't Forum PVP.  If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident.  When I don't understand, I ask.  Such is not intended as criticism.
  • Dreamo84Dreamo84 Member UncommonPosts: 3,713

    Easy solution. Don't play it until they "launch" it. People have this lack of self-control when it comes to MMOs.

    "They should not have launched this game yet! I don't like it, it's too buggy!"

     

    Well, wait...I am enjoying the game. If they hadn't launched it I wouldn't be able to enjoy it. You can certainly choose not to play it, sounds like a win win. Why do you want to ruin my fun just because you feel the need to play something you don't like?

    I think a big part of the truth lies in the fact that many of the complainers(especially on this forum) don't actually play the games they complain about. To me, that's a far bigger problem than any open beta tag debate.

    image
  • herox77herox77 Member Posts: 2
    On firefall there has been a wipe to characters once already(that I know of and sense I started playing about a year ago). It was not to long ago when they overhauled the frame system and put in a difference in pvp and pve frames.

    Now on to the topic of "open beta". I feel that the "open beta" thing is more than just a way to get our money without the worry of to much crap thrown at them by the community. While in "open beta" developers can radically change mechanics in a game without that much outcry form the community. While in fully launched games communities tend to rage when something they have come to know and love, or get used to, to suddenly gets changed and they may or may not lose many hours of game play to get some that they now have to get all over again or get the new version of. Also when you come to look at it the money thing just helps them make a better MMO(hopefully). They could use that income to maybe hire more people to flesh things out quicker or to get better servers so when people come in at the launch of the game they are not smacked with server outages and heavy lag. All "open betas" come with an unspoken disclaimer that basically says that: We want to let you guys play this now, but know that radical changes could be made, progress could get reset, and your many hours of sleepless nights could end up being for nothing. With this known players tend to react less harsh to developers because this is an "open beta" and not a full lanuch of the game.

    All of these things are unacceptable in the a fully lanched MMO. Developers use these "open Beta" to make an mmo just better for the players in the long run. Because once you go to "fully launched" then a lot of potions for changing the MMO are closed.
  • gaeanprayergaeanprayer Member UncommonPosts: 2,341
    Article would hit its mark a bit better if you'd take another gander at that last line, Bill :)

    I'm glad someone touched on this topic, it's been a problem for a while. Betas haven't been what they're supposed to be for years, they're just means of advertising, and ways to release games as buggy, exploitable messes (Neverwinter) while still under the protective veil of the word "Beta". You see how many people rise to protect a game, say "it's a beta, it's going to have bugs," and companies have gotten smart enough to use their fans. Hopefully their fans will wisen up and stop allowing themselves to be used.

    "Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."

  • JaedorJaedor Member UncommonPosts: 1,173

    Good read and I agree. I think my defining line between beta and launch is the combination of two things: separate beta server and the wipe line. Without a separate beta server, no wipes means it's a launch.

  • BadSpockBadSpock Member UncommonPosts: 7,979

    I think the utter failure at launch of games like SimCity and Diablo 3 has scared developers into not wanting to call something an "official launch" so that they are incapable of having a "bad launch."

    They can always blame problems on that fact it's "open beta" or a "soft launch" to try and avoid some bad press, and call it "official launch" once the problems have been sorted out.

    Too bad the average gamer is smart enough (not something I say often) to see what they are really doing.

     

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719

    So I say "are those real?" And she says "I'm not telling." So I say "Well, real or not, they are very nice." And she says "Thank you!"

    ....

     

    Seems like Bill and the media in general are more affected by this pseudo-beta than any reasonably intelligent gamer who knows for a fact that it's a launch. They're not quite sure when the correct time is to stop "previewing" it and start "reviewing" it. Mind you, I often find it hard to tell the difference between an opinionated preview and a "real" review. Hey! Do you think that maybe they're doing it deliberately so that people will see it for themselves without having been pre-conditioned by reviewers and Metacritic one way or the other?

    IDK but I'm playing it and haven't spent a dime. Got a couple of level 30 characters and sorry Bill, I don't think a spider would make me enjoy it a lot more than using my slow-ass 5G Palomino nor am I having storage issues and the purple chest key gambling mini-game doesn't interest me. 

    Yeah...it's an "open beta." Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean?

    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • alkarionlogalkarionlog Member EpicPosts: 3,584
    well I say you are kinda 5 years later, nothing new they use "open betas", to make players get adicted tot he game and start milking then soon, some at least would wait till a certain date to push the CS out, not anymore. but the poroblem is as long players feel its a ok behavior they will not stop doing that and things will go worse
    FOR HONOR, FOR FREEDOM.... and for some money.
  • keithiankeithian Member UncommonPosts: 3,191
    I totally agree with this article and the timing of the review. It should be done when a company gets greedy like asking for money for open beta. The only thing I disagree with is that this is a good game. I found it a step backwards from the latest releases (GW2, SWTOR, etc) and completely boring from a PVE perspective.

    There Is Always Hope!

  • picommanderpicommander Member UncommonPosts: 256
    Just call it "soft review" then and you're all set.
  • nbtscannbtscan Member UncommonPosts: 862
    Paying for beta access was common even among games that were to launch as a subscription game. I don't know how prevalent that is now, but the last game I saw that with was Aion. I don't think you should have to pre-buy a game to get closed or open beta access. Especially open beta, where this is the phase in the game's development where things are as they will probably be in retail, and this is where consumers should be able to honestly decide whether or not they will want to play this game or not.

    While this is probably a terrible example, FFXIV: ARR will have an open beta that is free for all to try. Alpha and Closed Beta has been a mix of people who played the original game and people who signed up via their beta website or received a beta key via an event such as PAX East. I say this isn't the best example since SE needs to do everything possible to put their company and this game in a better light.

    I know I've gone a bit off topic, but this was talking about MMOs in general nearly as much as Neverwinter, but I hope you guys do something similar with your "open beta journal" for FFXIV: ARR. I'm not sure if reviewers from MMORPG got into the game or not, but I don't really see any impressions from their current beta phases here. The upcoming beta phase in early June will have the game see a lot of changes, so I hope it can get some exposure then.

  • unkkutunkkut Member UncommonPosts: 36
    If you see "open beta", dont spend your money. I can't rationalize spending money and getting exactly what you paid for as a problem, regardless of the games phase.
  • koljanekoljane Member UncommonPosts: 171
    Amen to that. This is kind of things are common now. It is not an RPG but DOTA 2 is still in "beta" :D.
    All new games are trying to hook you on their Foundry packs or VIP access to beta by paying big money like every AAA rated game is worth.
    Don`t know how the law goes with taxes and such if you present your game as in "test phase" but I guess there is also a big exploit that tax agents could look in to it.
    I mean, if the game is in BETA phase then you should give us all the things in the shop for free so we can try it out, who knows maybe the $40 mount is bugged and maybe he needs polishing and maybe we should try different builds for classes for free so we can try and maybe see the problems that could be fixed when game is released.
    Personally, I play Neverwinter and right now as lev 33 i see the choices i made are not good enough in my build and now I have to pay money to respec my toon in the open beta status??!!! Seriously ??
  • DAOWAceDAOWAce Member UncommonPosts: 432
    The last two paragraphs of this article are the takeaway.
    Originally posted by SBFord
    For review purposes, a few of us at MMORPG.com were given Hero of the North founder’s packs. That’s $200 worth of Astral Diamonds, an epic spider mount, and a bunch of other perks that we didn’t have to pay for.  Without them, the game would be far less enjoyable as Suzie’s article states.


    People really need to stop defending this game (thankfully they're in the minority).  PWE ruined an otherwise good game.  I won't get into it here though, I've done it enough on the official forums.

     

    Edit: Christ it's beyond hard to add formatting to these posts.  BBcode doesn't seem to work, yet it's shown in the standard editor.

Sign In or Register to comment.