MMOs tend not to give info till they get close to release. They are no different then any other MMO out there. 2017 is their release from what I read. My guess is if this holds true, next year this time we will start to see a steady flow of info.
This is true. In fact, in the 'old' days, you really didn't announce much about your game until, say, a year or so before launch (you'd wait for the E3 before launch, line up a bunch of articles in the game media, etc.). Before that you kept things internal. You could make a change, and not have to explain why to future users, because they wouldn't have known you made the change in the first place.
Now, this has changed in recent years because of kickstarter, crowdfunding in general, steam early access, etc. Now developers have to be a lot more open about their game much earlier than previously. I don't think this is fundamentally a bad thing, but it does require more work on the dev side, because you have to try to keep people excited without releasing or committing to too much. The PR and community effort has to begin earlier. It's a bit of a hassle, but I think I'm in favor of it because as a gamer too, I want more information and sooner before I get too excited about an upcoming title.
How it's affected us specifically, well, we have to be very careful about how we word things. I try to be as open as possible, and if there's a system we want to implement and test first before announcing exactly how it works, I try to say just that: this system is not yet set in stone, so I'm not going into details, and beta will be very important, because that's when we'll try out a lot of these ideas and see if they're really good ones, or if they need to be tweaked and tuned (or, worst case, removed). So I don't mind being more transparent and open, but at the same time humbly request that people understand and are patient when we do say 'hey, sorry, it's too early to go into details' or 'hey, sorry, that's something we're going to mess with in alpha or beta, so we're not talking about it now'.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
MMOs tend not to give info till they get close to release. They are no different then any other MMO out there. 2017 is their release from what I read. My guess is if this holds true, next year this time we will start to see a steady flow of info.
This is true. In fact, in the 'old' days, you really didn't announce much about your game until, say, a year or so before launch (you'd wait for the E3 before launch, line up a bunch of articles in the game media, etc.). Before that you kept things internal. You could make a change, and not have to explain why to future users, because they wouldn't have known you made the change in the first place.
Now, this has changed in recent years because of kickstarter, crowdfunding in general, steam early access, etc. Now developers have to be a lot more open about their game much earlier than previously. I don't think this is fundamentally a bad thing, but it does require more work on the dev side, because you have to try to keep people excited without releasing or committing to too much. The PR and community effort has to begin earlier. It's a bit of a hassle, but I think I'm in favor of it because as a gamer too, I want more information and sooner before I get too excited about an upcoming title.
How it's affected us specifically, well, we have to be very careful about how we word things. I try to be as open as possible, and if there's a system we want to implement and test first before announcing exactly how it works, I try to say just that: this system is not yet set in stone, so I'm not going into details, and beta will be very important, because that's when we'll try out a lot of these ideas and see if they're really good ones, or if they need to be tweaked and tuned (or, worst case, removed). So I don't mind being more transparent and open, but at the same time humbly request that people understand and are patient when we do say 'hey, sorry, it's too early to go into details' or 'hey, sorry, that's something we're going to mess with in alpha or beta, so we're not talking about it now'.
Thought about backing your game because, well, I loved EQ. How many people do you have working on the project?
Depending upon which distribution you get, Linux can be installed and used by any ordinary user, and all administrative jobs can be done with menus, you never have to look at any commandline, ever. Thats been the case for about a decade and a half now.
Yes you can also get a commandline Linux instead which still runs over consoles. But nobody forces you to.
The only reason nobody does so is because computers come with Windows preinstalled and yes, Linux has different programs and most importantly most games dont have a Linux version and sadly often Linux drivers for hardware are slower to get.
As an operating system, however, Linux is far better. The graphic interface is far better. The stability is a hell of a lot better, though Windows has improved massively in the past decade now.
The whole "its free" was a hyperbole. Its cheaper than other alternatives.
And as explained in the link from McQuaid, the engine has a couple quite crucial practical advantages.
They lack the one real advantage that most gamers want, companies that write games for the Linux platform. Easy to find for windows, not so much for Linux. I and many gamers like me are not going to jump the Windows ship in the hopes it will garner more games written for Linux. The industry is going to have to lead the way before I'll make the switch. This is an issue that Apple has been dealing with for a long time, with limited success.
Thought about backing your game because, well, I loved EQ. How many people do you have working on the project?
About 15 now, and we will probably peak in the mid-20s or so, when we've brought in all of the world builders and environmental artists needed to create an epic MMO world.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
MMOs tend not to give info till they get close to release. They are no different then any other MMO out there. 2017 is their release from what I read. My guess is if this holds true, next year this time we will start to see a steady flow of info.
This is true. In fact, in the 'old' days, you really didn't announce much about your game until, say, a year or so before launch (you'd wait for the E3 before launch, line up a bunch of articles in the game media, etc.). Before that you kept things internal. You could make a change, and not have to explain why to future users, because they wouldn't have known you made the change in the first place.
Now, this has changed in recent years because of kickstarter, crowdfunding in general, steam early access, etc. Now developers have to be a lot more open about their game much earlier than previously. I don't think this is fundamentally a bad thing, but it does require more work on the dev side, because you have to try to keep people excited without releasing or committing to too much. The PR and community effort has to begin earlier. It's a bit of a hassle, but I think I'm in favor of it because as a gamer too, I want more information and sooner before I get too excited about an upcoming title.
How it's affected us specifically, well, we have to be very careful about how we word things. I try to be as open as possible, and if there's a system we want to implement and test first before announcing exactly how it works, I try to say just that: this system is not yet set in stone, so I'm not going into details, and beta will be very important, because that's when we'll try out a lot of these ideas and see if they're really good ones, or if they need to be tweaked and tuned (or, worst case, removed). So I don't mind being more transparent and open, but at the same time humbly request that people understand and are patient when we do say 'hey, sorry, it's too early to go into details' or 'hey, sorry, that's something we're going to mess with in alpha or beta, so we're not talking about it now'.
Being a long time player of Everquest 1(Roughly 6-7years) and played Vanguard from its launch to its sunset, I am desperately looking for another MMO to call home as none out today can fill what either of those games filled. Is there any word on when the Alpha will begin or a roundabouts? I plan on pledging at least the $100 pledge when the Alpha begins so I can spend time in the game helping out with what I can. I beta tested EQ back in the day and many games since and look forward to this one probably the most.
Thought about backing your game because, well, I loved EQ. How many people do you have working on the project?
About 15 now, and we will probably peak in the mid-20s or so, when we've brought in all of the world builders and environmental artists needed to create an epic MMO world.
Well, I will be making a small contribution to the development of the game. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Being a long time player of Everquest 1(Roughly 6-7years) and played Vanguard from its launch to its sunset, I am desperately looking for another MMO to call home as none out today can fill what either of those games filled. Is there any word on when the Alpha will begin or a roundabouts? I plan on pledging at least the $100 pledge when the Alpha begins so I can spend time in the game helping out with what I can. I beta tested EQ back in the day and many games since and look forward to this one probably the most.
We're shooting for pre-alpha around the beginning of the year. But we're not committing or setting any dates in stone, because the game must be truly ready for testing otherwise it doesn't help either the player or developer. Here's something I posted elsewhere:
Bringing people in too early doesn't do anyone any good. It doesn't really help the player, because you're 'testing' something that's not ready to be tested, that still has significant enough issues that it detracts from 'fun.' And it doesn't help the devs to bring people in too early because the feedback isn't as useful and you just end up with burned out and disappointed testeres who were (rightfully) expecting more. So while we have talked about 'target dates', none of this is set in stone. We won't be bringing people into the game until the game is truly ready, which means at a point where it benefits both the devs and the testers to start testing.
Lastly, pre-alpha and alpha testing is *really* going to be about testing. Yes, it's a preview of the game to some degree, and there's no getting around that. But I want to set expectations: you will only be able to play during times when we want the game tested, and you will often be asked to focus test certain areas, or classes, or types of abilities, etc. Early testing is not like Steam Early Access, where you are paying basically for the priveledge to play early. That's not what we're after here. We need people who really want to help make Pantheon incredible, who will work hard, who will give us good feedback, and who are willing to do focus testing, which can often involve repetition and can often be quite boring.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
We're shooting for pre-alpha around the beginning of the year. But we're not committing or setting any dates in stone, because the game must be truly ready for testing otherwise it doesn't help either the player or developer. Here's something I posted elsewhere:
Bringing people in too early doesn't do anyone any good. It doesn't really help the player, because you're 'testing' something that's not ready to be tested, that still has significant enough issues that it detracts from 'fun.' And it doesn't help the devs to bring people in too early because the feedback isn't as useful and you just end up with burned out and disappointed testeres who were (rightfully) expecting more. So while we have talked about 'target dates', none of this is set in stone. We won't be bringing people into the game until the game is truly ready, which means at a point where it benefits both the devs and the testers to start testing.
Lastly, pre-alpha and alpha testing is *really* going to be about testing. Yes, it's a preview of the game to some degree, and there's no getting around that. But I want to set expectations: you will only be able to play during times when we want the game tested, and you will often be asked to focus test certain areas, or classes, or types of abilities, etc. Early testing is not like Steam Early Access, where you are paying basically for the priveledge to play early. That's not what we're after here. We need people who really want to help make Pantheon incredible, who will work hard, who will give us good feedback, and who are willing to do focus testing, which can often involve repetition and can often be quite boring.
This is key and reminds me of the early days of testing. I remember when you were rolling out EQ in the very early testing phases. Testing was not simply "come play our game and enjoy", you had pre-login and post-login requirements to the testers about specific aspects of the game play. Many games during those days were very detailed in their requirements and were akin to what we would term as a full time QA position today. In fact, using "Beta Tester" on a job application was actually useful in some contexts because it showed that the person doing the testing was required to meet certain evaluation and testing criteria. I remember doing many alpha/beta tests for early MMOs and games in general those days where your interaction was in many ways like a side job.
These days, "Alpha/Beta Tester" really only means that the person got early access to enjoy the game, "Rarely" more and it has created a certain level of expectation by those who do get into a test. This makes it difficult for a company who truly wants to "test" their game to any viable means as people have come to expect certain levels of quality at those stages due to the marketing gimmicks of today and have aversions and tantrums when it does not meet mainstream standards.
I don't envy you guys, you walk a difficult road and my insignificant advice is to keep your testing group as small as possible until you are ready for a public release. I mean, one can easily read the forums and see the numerous arguments here that the small testing team you have will be sufficient to hit the "style" of content and play you are looking for. Open and late closed beta will be where you guys work out the bulk of your bugs and balance features.
Being a long time player of Everquest 1(Roughly 6-7years) and played Vanguard from its launch to its sunset, I am desperately looking for another MMO to call home as none out today can fill what either of those games filled. Is there any word on when the Alpha will begin or a roundabouts? I plan on pledging at least the $100 pledge when the Alpha begins so I can spend time in the game helping out with what I can. I beta tested EQ back in the day and many games since and look forward to this one probably the most.
We're shooting for pre-alpha around the beginning of the year. But we're not committing or setting any dates in stone, because the game must be truly ready for testing otherwise it doesn't help either the player or developer. Here's something I posted elsewhere:
Bringing people in too early doesn't do anyone any good. It doesn't really help the player, because you're 'testing' something that's not ready to be tested, that still has significant enough issues that it detracts from 'fun.' And it doesn't help the devs to bring people in too early because the feedback isn't as useful and you just end up with burned out and disappointed testeres who were (rightfully) expecting more. So while we have talked about 'target dates', none of this is set in stone. We won't be bringing people into the game until the game is truly ready, which means at a point where it benefits both the devs and the testers to start testing.
Lastly, pre-alpha and alpha testing is *really* going to be about testing. Yes, it's a preview of the game to some degree, and there's no getting around that. But I want to set expectations: you will only be able to play during times when we want the game tested, and you will often be asked to focus test certain areas, or classes, or types of abilities, etc. Early testing is not like Steam Early Access, where you are paying basically for the priveledge to play early. That's not what we're after here. We need people who really want to help make Pantheon incredible, who will work hard, who will give us good feedback, and who are willing to do focus testing, which can often involve repetition and can often be quite boring.
I'm all for it! Testing literally should be testing certain systems like you say. Alphas now a days are basically what you get when it officially "launches" I'm all for testing actually being testing to make the game better in every aspect that It can.
On a side note, I remember reading an article mentioning that the game currently has 10 levels with I think.. 4 zones completed? This is just a hypothetical question but if you were to release the pre-alpha right now, what in your mind/professional opinion would be the goal for testing at this very moment? Zones? Classes? Quests? Certain functions? It's nice to actually communicate with a head honcho of a dev team(1 of which I played his games for many years! so its exciting!)
On a side note, I remember reading an article mentioning that the game currently has 10 levels with I think.. 4 zones completed? This is just a hypothetical question but if you were to release the pre-alpha right now, what in your mind/professional opinion would be the goal for testing at this very moment? Zones? Classes? Quests? Certain functions? It's nice to actually communicate with a head honcho of a dev team(1 of which I played his games for many years! so its exciting!)
The goal right now is to make the core foundation of the game as solid as possible. The core of the game is basic MMO functionality and mechanics, much of which is based on what are now referred to as 'old school' MMOs, like EQ, UO, DAoC, etc. Combat is the big focus. We've implemented the core classes and we've given them abilities (spells, stances, prayers, actions, etc.). We've created items and loot for levels 1-10. We've got dungeons and outdoor zones populated with encounters for that level range. We have basic mob AI in -- we can make an NPC a wizard and he will act a certain way, and use certain spells, or a warrior, etc. Basic NPC behaviors. We're focused on distances, when mobs aggro you, how long they'll follow you. We're focused on the core UI -- does the game feel responsive, the general UI intuitive? How long does a basic battle last? Does it feel right, or too short or too long? How difficult is soloing at lower levels, and then what happens if you bring friends? Situational awareness -- do you have to pay attention to what is going on around you during combat? Do you have to worry about adds? Can you stay in first person and focus on the battle, or do you need to make sure you don't wipe because you weren't paying attention and allowed other wandering and aggro mobs to get too near?
And then, ultimately, with all of this going on, is the basic game fun? I realize that this may seem like a 'duh', but it's really quite important. MMOs are complex and there's a lot going on, things you have to watch and keep track of, the role you are playing in a group, how you are equipped, etc. We have enough of the core game in now where we can holistically consider how all of these variables and formulas are coming together and discuss if it feels right, if it plays like we wanted it to play, and is it all fun?
The basic approach is what I call the 'skyscraper' approach. When you build a skyscraper, you first make sure you have a solid and deep foundation. Then when you are building upwards, adding on new stories, you don't have to worry about the structure crumbling around itself. This is what we are focused on now. We have a couple of outdoor zones, a couple of dungeons, and a city. We have content in for these core classes so you can level up to around 10. Items work, stats mean something, skills go up through use, core abilities/spells are there, grouping works, communication works. Auto-attack and tab targeting work, with offensive and defensive targets. Spells can be learned and memmed. There's not a lot of unique, Pantheon-specific, untried and inventive functionality yet, and that's by design. We're also not spending a ton of time on the visuals being fully fleshed out -- we don't need a lot of different animations, or player character models, or spell effects. All of that is certainly important, but it doesn't gate us from testing and establishing the fundamentals of MMO gameplay.
Some simple quests are being put in, but nothing too elaborate. Abilities and spells are mostly in families that you see in just about every MMO. The core classes are distinct so we can test interdependence -- that is fundamental.
Anyway, we basically have a playable old-school MMO. Everything fundamental to how an MMO of this style is pretty much in place. We also have temporary zones where we can quickly test combat (without having to wander about a huge outdoor zone), and we are logging combat messages with a lot of detail, so we can see the effects of a spell, or attributes or skills going up, or using one weapon vs another. The goal, like I've said, is to make sure we have a solid foundation that is also fun. The bells and whistles aren't necessarily there, but some polish is important (again, like in areas of the UI, does it feel responsive, does timing work and matter). A lot of it is objective, but some is subjective. But the ultimate goal is to establish this solid, core foundation so that when we build on it, increase the level range, put in the rest of the classes, create more varied zones, make more sophisticated NPC behavior, and start adding some of the more unique and untried Pantheon-specific game mechanics, we don't do something that brings the whole game down like a house of cards. We'll be able to tweak and tune things without breaking a ton of other aspects. We'll be able to change or even remove game mechanics and features without breaking the core of the game.
And when we do add and extend the core, we do it very modularly, one building block at a time. We don't put in complicated features and mechanics as detailed and complex as we hope to ship with all at once. One step at a time, building on what is already there, extending and adding. It's all part of an MMO development philosophy that I and others have developed over the last 15+ years. We've seen a lot of approaches that work, and probably more that don't work. We've seen MMOs developed where a ton of time and effort has been put into a system, but when that system is finally placed into the context of the rest of the game, it doesn't fit, or doesn't have the expected result. We've seen so much time, effort, and money wasted by not mitigating risk and approaching development very methodically. We've seen what feature creep can do. We've seen what waiting to put in basic systems until later can do. We've made probably more mistakes than done things right. And with Pantheon, keeping a lean and mean team going, and not having a huge budget, and not trying to appeal to everyone but making sure those we are targeting truly love the game, all of this stuff is important, even essential.
....
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
So that's where we're at. I'm really happy with how much we've accomplished with so few people and in such a short amount of time. We do make mistakes, but rarely repeat old mistakes. We 'fail forward' if at all possible. We're leveraging our experience making these very complex games (there are many genres of games that are far easier to create) and trying to work both hard *and* smart.
Next we'll start building on this foundation, increasing the levels, building more content and zones, implementing the rest of the classes, and start modularly adding in the more complex systems, the newer and more exciting features, etc. Once we have enough content and functionality in place that we can't test it all ourselves, then we'll bring in our pre-alpha testers, and then after that our alpha testers. Then once we have more than a solid MMO foundation but actually a specific MMO called Pantheon, we'll start beta testing. Then we'll start to see areas that need to be tweaked, or systems that could be made better, or even ideas that don't pan out at all, and be able to address them without the game crumbling down around us. Early beta is where you start to address issues and tweak and balance things that just were not apparent with a much smaller group of testers. Later beta is where you start stress testing server load and look for problems that only arise when you have a game being played by roughly the same number of players you expect to be in the world after launch.
Anyway, I'll stop here. I've touched on a lot of things, a lot of philosophy behind how to build MMOs, how to avoid big mistakes, how to be efficient, how to know what to worry about now and what can be dealt with later. It's hard to make a single post that summarizes where we are at now and where we're headed, because it's all built on years and even decades of experience doing this sort of thing, seeing what works and what doesn't. But I tried to summarize it the best I could. Hopefully some of this makes some sense, and at the very least answers your question as to where the game is at now.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, pre-alpha and alpha testing is *really* going to be about testing. Yes, it's a preview of the game to some degree, and there's no getting around that. But I want to set expectations: you will only be able to play during times when we want the game tested, and you will often be asked to focus test certain areas, or classes, or types of abilities, etc. Early testing is not like Steam Early Access, where you are paying basically for the priveledge to play early. That's not what we're after here. We need people who really want to help make Pantheon incredible, who will work hard, who will give us good feedback, and who are willing to do focus testing, which can often involve repetition and can often be quite boring.
I hope I am wrong, but when I read that I instantly think that you mean "people that have donated the most money". If you really and truly mean what you say you would not be selling Alpha Access as a perk. You would ask people to submit requests listing their qualifications and reasons for wanting to test. You know, just like in the old days before pre-alpha, alpha and beta were "perks" that got put into pledge packages to sell stuff...
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're focused on distances, when mobs aggro you, how long they'll follow you. ....
You know I had to ask... but you aren't going to be tethering mobs are you? I mean, this is one that really rubs me the wrong way as it is the pinnacle of what has produced easy and fearless journey in games today. You remember in EQ that not knowing where the zone exit was or if it was too far away would create a massive pit of fear that welled up in your stomach when you realized you just agroed a mob you could not kill? The panic, the fear, the dread of recovery... Those are good times that to be honest.. I haven't felt in any other game since I left EQ and the reason is because everyone tethers mobs.
Other than that, good read and good job on making such progress!
Lastly, pre-alpha and alpha testing is *really* going to be about testing. Yes, it's a preview of the game to some degree, and there's no getting around that. But I want to set expectations: you will only be able to play during times when we want the game tested, and you will often be asked to focus test certain areas, or classes, or types of abilities, etc. Early testing is not like Steam Early Access, where you are paying basically for the priveledge to play early. That's not what we're after here. We need people who really want to help make Pantheon incredible, who will work hard, who will give us good feedback, and who are willing to do focus testing, which can often involve repetition and can often be quite boring.
I hope I am wrong, but when I read that I instantly think that you mean "people that have donated the most money". If you really and truly mean what you say you would not be selling Alpha Access as a perk. You would ask people to submit requests listing their qualifications and reasons for wanting to test. You know, just like in the old days before pre-alpha, alpha and beta were "perks" that got put into pledge packages to sell stuff...
Yeah they are selling tiers with alpha access but it says, and I'm paraphrasing here, that if you aren't offering up constructive feedback or are just in the alpha to try and get a leg up on everyone else then they reserve the right to boot you. They might be selling the access but they actually want the feedback to know what sucks, whats fun and what's in the middle and needs improving or nerfing.
We're focused on distances, when mobs aggro you, how long they'll follow you. ....
You know I had to ask... but you aren't going to be tethering mobs are you? I mean, this is one that really rubs me the wrong way as it is the pinnacle of what has produced easy and fearless journey in games today. You remember in EQ that not knowing where the zone exit was or if it was too far away would create a massive pit of fear that welled up in your stomach when you realized you just agroed a mob you could not kill? The panic, the fear, the dread of recovery... Those are good times that to be honest.. I haven't felt in any other game since I left EQ and the reason is because everyone tethers mobs.
Other than that, good read and good job on making such progress!
Correct -- the majority of mobs will not be tethered. There may be certain circumstances where they would be, but it would be the exception, not the rule.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, pre-alpha and alpha testing is *really* going to be about testing. Yes, it's a preview of the game to some degree, and there's no getting around that. But I want to set expectations: you will only be able to play during times when we want the game tested, and you will often be asked to focus test certain areas, or classes, or types of abilities, etc. Early testing is not like Steam Early Access, where you are paying basically for the priveledge to play early. That's not what we're after here. We need people who really want to help make Pantheon incredible, who will work hard, who will give us good feedback, and who are willing to do focus testing, which can often involve repetition and can often be quite boring.
I hope I am wrong, but when I read that I instantly think that you mean "people that have donated the most money". If you really and truly mean what you say you would not be selling Alpha Access as a perk. You would ask people to submit requests listing their qualifications and reasons for wanting to test. You know, just like in the old days before pre-alpha, alpha and beta were "perks" that got put into pledge packages to sell stuff...
I respectfully disagree. We're going to need a lot of testers, ramping up from pre-alpha all the way to filling complete shards in the latter phases of beta. Most of the testers we're going to need to basically play the game and provide feedback. A smaller but still very important subset of the testers will be those who are especially adept and interested in helping us focus test specific parts of the game. That smaller group will indeed be chosen by us and their qualifications and commitment very important in that selection process. But regardless of what group you are in, you will be expected to provide feedback (we already have a button in-game that allows the user to submit a bug or feedback that gets logged into our database). If you don't help out and test, you won't be a tester for long.
But asking for resumes or qualifications from everyone is unnecessary and needlessly cumbersome. We do indeed ask for money in general if you want to help test during pre-alpha and alpha, and this is for two reasons:
1. to make sure you're serious about it (although you could simply be serious about previewing the game and not necessarily helping us test, but there's no getting around that) and
2. to help fund the game. I have no issue being up front about both and don't think it's mutually exclusive at all. If you pledge at a certain tier, you will be invited into pre-alpha and/or alpha testing. Is that a perk? It sure is, and it helps us fund this game and make sure it becomes a reality. We get testers and we raise money to help us make a great game -- it's a win-win.
Now if we were only using it to bring in money and to give people a 'sneak peek' of the game, then I do think your point would be valid. But we're not. In fact, you're responding to posts I've been making setting expectations and making sure people know that we are serious about testing, serious about making sure the game is ready for external testers, and that we will expect people to treat this as much more than merely a 'sneak peek'. By being up-front about this I think I am, respectfully, invalidating your assertion.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, pre-alpha and alpha testing is *really* going to be about testing. Yes, it's a preview of the game to some degree, and there's no getting around that. But I want to set expectations: you will only be able to play during times when we want the game tested, and you will often be asked to focus test certain areas, or classes, or types of abilities, etc. Early testing is not like Steam Early Access, where you are paying basically for the priveledge to play early. That's not what we're after here. We need people who really want to help make Pantheon incredible, who will work hard, who will give us good feedback, and who are willing to do focus testing, which can often involve repetition and can often be quite boring.
I hope I am wrong, but when I read that I instantly think that you mean "people that have donated the most money". If you really and truly mean what you say you would not be selling Alpha Access as a perk. You would ask people to submit requests listing their qualifications and reasons for wanting to test. You know, just like in the old days before pre-alpha, alpha and beta were "perks" that got put into pledge packages to sell stuff...
I respectfully disagree. We're going to need a lot of testers, ramping up from pre-alpha all the way to filling complete shards in the latter phases of beta. Most of the testers we're going to need to basically play the game and provide feedback. A smaller but still very important subset of the testers will be those who are especially adept and interested in helping us focus test specific parts of the game. That smaller group will indeed be chosen by us and their qualifications and commitment very important in that selection process. But regardless of what group you are in, you will be expected to provide feedback (we already have a button in-game that allows the user to submit a bug or feedback that gets logged into our database). If you don't help out and test, you won't be a tester for long.
But asking for resumes or qualifications from everyone is unnecessary and needlessly cumbersome. We do indeed ask for money in general if you want to help test during pre-alpha and alpha, and this is for two reasons:
1. to make sure you're serious about it (although you could simply be serious about previewing the game and not necessarily helping us test, but there's no getting around that) and
2. to help fund the game. I have no issue being up front about both and don't think it's mutually exclusive at all. If you pledge at a certain tier, you will be invited into pre-alpha and/or alpha testing. Is that a perk? It sure is, and it helps us fund this game and make sure it becomes a reality. We get testers and we raise money to help us make a great game -- it's a win-win.
Now if we were only using it to bring in money and to give people a 'sneak peek' of the game, then I do think your point would be valid. But we're not. In fact, you're responding to posts I've been making setting expectations and making sure people know that we are serious about testing, serious about making sure the game is ready for external testers, and that we will expect people to treat this as much more than merely a 'sneak peek'. By being up-front about this I think I am, respectfully, invalidating your assertion.
Actually no, I would respectfully disagree. I believe that my point is perfectly valid in that there is no legitimate correlation between how much a person pledges to a game sight unseen (if anything) and their quality as a tester. There are games that I have tested from very early alpha (true alpha) for free and there are games that I was granted alpha access because of a pre-order or a pledge. I can absolutely assure you that there was zero difference in how I approached either scenario and I do not think I'm a special snowflake. The same folks that would be truly testing would be doing so regardless of whether they paid you $100 for the privilege.
It's your game and you can certainly gate it anyway you like. We will just have to disagree on this point as I will never be convinced that asking someone for money to test a game is a good idea.
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
Lastly, pre-alpha and alpha testing is *really* going to be about testing. Yes, it's a preview of the game to some degree, and there's no getting around that. But I want to set expectations: you will only be able to play during times when we want the game tested, and you will often be asked to focus test certain areas, or classes, or types of abilities, etc. Early testing is not like Steam Early Access, where you are paying basically for the priveledge to play early. That's not what we're after here. We need people who really want to help make Pantheon incredible, who will work hard, who will give us good feedback, and who are willing to do focus testing, which can often involve repetition and can often be quite boring.
I hope I am wrong, but when I read that I instantly think that you mean "people that have donated the most money". If you really and truly mean what you say you would not be selling Alpha Access as a perk. You would ask people to submit requests listing their qualifications and reasons for wanting to test. You know, just like in the old days before pre-alpha, alpha and beta were "perks" that got put into pledge packages to sell stuff...
I respectfully disagree. We're going to need a lot of testers, ramping up from pre-alpha all the way to filling complete shards in the latter phases of beta. Most of the testers we're going to need to basically play the game and provide feedback. A smaller but still very important subset of the testers will be those who are especially adept and interested in helping us focus test specific parts of the game. That smaller group will indeed be chosen by us and their qualifications and commitment very important in that selection process. But regardless of what group you are in, you will be expected to provide feedback (we already have a button in-game that allows the user to submit a bug or feedback that gets logged into our database). If you don't help out and test, you won't be a tester for long.
But asking for resumes or qualifications from everyone is unnecessary and needlessly cumbersome. We do indeed ask for money in general if you want to help test during pre-alpha and alpha, and this is for two reasons:
1. to make sure you're serious about it (although you could simply be serious about previewing the game and not necessarily helping us test, but there's no getting around that) and
2. to help fund the game. I have no issue being up front about both and don't think it's mutually exclusive at all. If you pledge at a certain tier, you will be invited into pre-alpha and/or alpha testing. Is that a perk? It sure is, and it helps us fund this game and make sure it becomes a reality. We get testers and we raise money to help us make a great game -- it's a win-win.
Now if we were only using it to bring in money and to give people a 'sneak peek' of the game, then I do think your point would be valid. But we're not. In fact, you're responding to posts I've been making setting expectations and making sure people know that we are serious about testing, serious about making sure the game is ready for external testers, and that we will expect people to treat this as much more than merely a 'sneak peek'. By being up-front about this I think I am, respectfully, invalidating your assertion.
Actually no, I would respectfully disagree. I believe that my point is perfectly valid in that there is no legitimate correlation between how much a person pledges to a game sight unseen (if anything) and their quality as a tester. There are games that I have tested from very early alpha (true alpha) for free and there are games that I was granted alpha access because of a pre-order or a pledge. I can absolutely assure you that there was zero difference in how I approached either scenario and I do not think I'm a special snowflake. The same folks that would be truly testing would be doing so regardless of whether they paid you $100 for the privilege.
It's your game and you can certainly gate it anyway you like. We will just have to disagree on this point as I will never be convinced that asking someone for money to test a game is a good idea.
There is absolutely no correlation between people who don't pledge and quality testing/testers, either. Your argument is nonsense and simply contradicts itself. There's no correlation between pledging and testing ability, period.
If you don't agree, then you're one of the few. Don't pledge, don't donate, don't test. If you're "worried" that these people with money will ruin what may be a great game, then pledge and do something about it. Otherwise, respectfully or not, your reasoning is irrelevant.
There is absolutely no correlation between people who don't pledge and quality testing/testers, either. Your argument is nonsense and simply contradicts itself. There's no correlation between pledging and testing ability, period.
Umm... exactly. Thanks for making my point. It was Aradune who stated that a reason they charge for testing is "To make sure you're serious about it"
Again. I'm glad that you agree that there is no correlation between paying $100 for a game sight unseen and your testing capability. Also, perhaps lost in your defensive overdrive was the clear statement that he could of course gate his game and test any way he wanted. It's his game after all. heck he can and HAS gated pre-alpha at $1000. I simply disagree with the assertion that paying or not paying to be a tester has any correlation to how good you would be. Glad you agree with me.
Edit to add- IMHO it would be better to just stick with his stated reason #2: "To help fund the game". Just be honest about it. Say, we think this is a commodity people are willing to pay for and as a start up we just need the money so it's a perk we throw in that our higher pledges get access to Pre-Alpha, Alpha and possibly beta based on their pledge amount.
I might not like that concept but it's a legit reason and totally understandable. You will NEVER convince me that your testing ability is in any way shape or form tied to the amount of money you pledge or don't pledge.
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
There is absolutely no correlation between people who don't pledge and quality testing/testers, either. Your argument is nonsense and simply contradicts itself. There's no correlation between pledging and testing ability, period.
Umm... exactly. Thanks for making my point. It was Aradune who stated that a reason they charge for testing is "To make sure you're serious about it"
Again. I'm glad that you agree that there is no correlation between paying $100 for a game sight unseen and your testing capability. Also, perhaps lost in your defensive overdrive was the clear statement that he could of course gate his game and test any way he wanted. It's his game after all. heck he can and HAS gated pre-alpha at $1000. I simply disagree with the assertion that paying or not paying to be a tester has any correlation to how good you would be. Glad you agree with me.
Edit to add- IMHO it would be better to just stick with his stated reason #2: "To help fund the game". Just be honest about it. Say, we think this is a commodity people are willing to pay for and as a start up we just need the money so it's a perk we throw in that our higher pledges get access to Pre-Alpha, Alpha and possibly beta based on their pledge amount.
I might not like that concept but it's a legit reason and totally understandable. You will NEVER convince me that your testing ability is in any way shape or form tied to the amount of money you pledge or don't pledge.
Well, the thing is most people who are going to spend money on the game are serious in their intentions with the game, though as Brad said, it doesn't guarantee such interest is legitimate, but I think it is fair to assume in most cases it likely is. I mean, who spends a 100 bucks on a game and then has no real care about its development? Might be some, but darn if there are many.
i don't remember the exact number but it was around 25% of Steam games never get played by their owners.
A person passionate about a game will research it no matter the cost,spending money is imo meaningless,it doesn't make the game better for you or anyone else.I seriously do not understand the mentality that people are putting into their decisions to just hand over money to game developers,but it happens and a lot.
I still see some games in Twitch that you couldn't pay me enough to play them,yet people sitting there playing them for multiple hours with others watching.I really feel people just like to feel a part of a crowd ,weather it is funding or playing a game,that is why a crap game has say Pewdiepie as a streamer all of a sudden it has mega people watching it,next day no pewdiepie no watchers.
Me i don't get into that aura of feeling a need for anything,likely why i won't waste my time on a Blizzcon or any crowd funding nor do i feel the need to have to play a game just for the crowd.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Well, the thing is most people who are going to spend money on the game are serious in their intentions with the game, though as Brad said, it doesn't guarantee such interest is legitimate, but I think it is fair to assume in most cases it likely is. I mean, who spends a 100 bucks on a game and then has no real care about its development? Might be some, but darn if there are many.
I pledged on Kickstarter to Shroud of the Avatar, Shards and Camelot Unchained as well as Star Citizen. I haven't tested those for more than maybe 2 hours COMBINED. Not because they are bad but I just don't feel like testing. I'm sure when Crowfall hits Alpha and I get access I will load it up a bit just to peak at it but I won't be testing. I am quite confident that there are more than a few guys who couldn't pledge as much as I can afford to but would be much better testers than me just because they have the time and/or desire.
Heck I even pledged to Panthon on their Kickstarter at a level that would get me Alpha access. My ability or desire to test a game has ZERO to do with my ability to pay large sums of money.
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
Comments
This is true. In fact, in the 'old' days, you really didn't announce much about your game until, say, a year or so before launch (you'd wait for the E3 before launch, line up a bunch of articles in the game media, etc.). Before that you kept things internal. You could make a change, and not have to explain why to future users, because they wouldn't have known you made the change in the first place.
Now, this has changed in recent years because of kickstarter, crowdfunding in general, steam early access, etc. Now developers have to be a lot more open about their game much earlier than previously. I don't think this is fundamentally a bad thing, but it does require more work on the dev side, because you have to try to keep people excited without releasing or committing to too much. The PR and community effort has to begin earlier. It's a bit of a hassle, but I think I'm in favor of it because as a gamer too, I want more information and sooner before I get too excited about an upcoming title.
How it's affected us specifically, well, we have to be very careful about how we word things. I try to be as open as possible, and if there's a system we want to implement and test first before announcing exactly how it works, I try to say just that: this system is not yet set in stone, so I'm not going into details, and beta will be very important, because that's when we'll try out a lot of these ideas and see if they're really good ones, or if they need to be tweaked and tuned (or, worst case, removed). So I don't mind being more transparent and open, but at the same time humbly request that people understand and are patient when we do say 'hey, sorry, it's too early to go into details' or 'hey, sorry, that's something we're going to mess with in alpha or beta, so we're not talking about it now'.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thought about backing your game because, well, I loved EQ. How many people do you have working on the project?
They lack the one real advantage that most gamers want, companies that write games for the Linux platform. Easy to find for windows, not so much for Linux. I and many gamers like me are not going to jump the Windows ship in the hopes it will garner more games written for Linux. The industry is going to have to lead the way before I'll make the switch. This is an issue that Apple has been dealing with for a long time, with limited success.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I will be making a small contribution to the development of the game. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Bringing people in too early doesn't do anyone any good. It doesn't really help the player, because you're 'testing' something that's not ready to be tested, that still has significant enough issues that it detracts from 'fun.' And it doesn't help the devs to bring people in too early because the feedback isn't as useful and you just end up with burned out and disappointed testeres who were (rightfully) expecting more. So while we have talked about 'target dates', none of this is set in stone. We won't be bringing people into the game until the game is truly ready, which means at a point where it benefits both the devs and the testers to start testing.
Lastly, pre-alpha and alpha testing is *really* going to be about testing. Yes, it's a preview of the game to some degree, and there's no getting around that. But I want to set expectations: you will only be able to play during times when we want the game tested, and you will often be asked to focus test certain areas, or classes, or types of abilities, etc. Early testing is not like Steam Early Access, where you are paying basically for the priveledge to play early. That's not what we're after here. We need people who really want to help make Pantheon incredible, who will work hard, who will give us good feedback, and who are willing to do focus testing, which can often involve repetition and can often be quite boring.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
This is key and reminds me of the early days of testing. I remember when you were rolling out EQ in the very early testing phases. Testing was not simply "come play our game and enjoy", you had pre-login and post-login requirements to the testers about specific aspects of the game play. Many games during those days were very detailed in their requirements and were akin to what we would term as a full time QA position today. In fact, using "Beta Tester" on a job application was actually useful in some contexts because it showed that the person doing the testing was required to meet certain evaluation and testing criteria. I remember doing many alpha/beta tests for early MMOs and games in general those days where your interaction was in many ways like a side job.
These days, "Alpha/Beta Tester" really only means that the person got early access to enjoy the game, "Rarely" more and it has created a certain level of expectation by those who do get into a test. This makes it difficult for a company who truly wants to "test" their game to any viable means as people have come to expect certain levels of quality at those stages due to the marketing gimmicks of today and have aversions and tantrums when it does not meet mainstream standards.
I don't envy you guys, you walk a difficult road and my insignificant advice is to keep your testing group as small as possible until you are ready for a public release. I mean, one can easily read the forums and see the numerous arguments here that the small testing team you have will be sufficient to hit the "style" of content and play you are looking for. Open and late closed beta will be where you guys work out the bulk of your bugs and balance features.
I'm all for it! Testing literally should be testing certain systems like you say. Alphas now a days are basically what you get when it officially "launches" I'm all for testing actually being testing to make the game better in every aspect that It can.
On a side note, I remember reading an article mentioning that the game currently has 10 levels with I think.. 4 zones completed? This is just a hypothetical question but if you were to release the pre-alpha right now, what in your mind/professional opinion would be the goal for testing at this very moment? Zones? Classes? Quests? Certain functions? It's nice to actually communicate with a head honcho of a dev team(1 of which I played his games for many years! so its exciting!)
And then, ultimately, with all of this going on, is the basic game fun? I realize that this may seem like a 'duh', but it's really quite important. MMOs are complex and there's a lot going on, things you have to watch and keep track of, the role you are playing in a group, how you are equipped, etc. We have enough of the core game in now where we can holistically consider how all of these variables and formulas are coming together and discuss if it feels right, if it plays like we wanted it to play, and is it all fun?
The basic approach is what I call the 'skyscraper' approach. When you build a skyscraper, you first make sure you have a solid and deep foundation. Then when you are building upwards, adding on new stories, you don't have to worry about the structure crumbling around itself. This is what we are focused on now. We have a couple of outdoor zones, a couple of dungeons, and a city. We have content in for these core classes so you can level up to around 10. Items work, stats mean something, skills go up through use, core abilities/spells are there, grouping works, communication works. Auto-attack and tab targeting work, with offensive and defensive targets. Spells can be learned and memmed. There's not a lot of unique, Pantheon-specific, untried and inventive functionality yet, and that's by design. We're also not spending a ton of time on the visuals being fully fleshed out -- we don't need a lot of different animations, or player character models, or spell effects. All of that is certainly important, but it doesn't gate us from testing and establishing the fundamentals of MMO gameplay.
Some simple quests are being put in, but nothing too elaborate. Abilities and spells are mostly in families that you see in just about every MMO. The core classes are distinct so we can test interdependence -- that is fundamental.
Anyway, we basically have a playable old-school MMO. Everything fundamental to how an MMO of this style is pretty much in place. We also have temporary zones where we can quickly test combat (without having to wander about a huge outdoor zone), and we are logging combat messages with a lot of detail, so we can see the effects of a spell, or attributes or skills going up, or using one weapon vs another. The goal, like I've said, is to make sure we have a solid foundation that is also fun. The bells and whistles aren't necessarily there, but some polish is important (again, like in areas of the UI, does it feel responsive, does timing work and matter). A lot of it is objective, but some is subjective. But the ultimate goal is to establish this solid, core foundation so that when we build on it, increase the level range, put in the rest of the classes, create more varied zones, make more sophisticated NPC behavior, and start adding some of the more unique and untried Pantheon-specific game mechanics, we don't do something that brings the whole game down like a house of cards. We'll be able to tweak and tune things without breaking a ton of other aspects. We'll be able to change or even remove game mechanics and features without breaking the core of the game.
And when we do add and extend the core, we do it very modularly, one building block at a time. We don't put in complicated features and mechanics as detailed and complex as we hope to ship with all at once. One step at a time, building on what is already there, extending and adding. It's all part of an MMO development philosophy that I and others have developed over the last 15+ years. We've seen a lot of approaches that work, and probably more that don't work. We've seen MMOs developed where a ton of time and effort has been put into a system, but when that system is finally placed into the context of the rest of the game, it doesn't fit, or doesn't have the expected result. We've seen so much time, effort, and money wasted by not mitigating risk and approaching development very methodically. We've seen what feature creep can do. We've seen what waiting to put in basic systems until later can do. We've made probably more mistakes than done things right. And with Pantheon, keeping a lean and mean team going, and not having a huge budget, and not trying to appeal to everyone but making sure those we are targeting truly love the game, all of this stuff is important, even essential.
....
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
So that's where we're at. I'm really happy with how much we've accomplished with so few people and in such a short amount of time. We do make mistakes, but rarely repeat old mistakes. We 'fail forward' if at all possible. We're leveraging our experience making these very complex games (there are many genres of games that are far easier to create) and trying to work both hard *and* smart.
Next we'll start building on this foundation, increasing the levels, building more content and zones, implementing the rest of the classes, and start modularly adding in the more complex systems, the newer and more exciting features, etc. Once we have enough content and functionality in place that we can't test it all ourselves, then we'll bring in our pre-alpha testers, and then after that our alpha testers. Then once we have more than a solid MMO foundation but actually a specific MMO called Pantheon, we'll start beta testing. Then we'll start to see areas that need to be tweaked, or systems that could be made better, or even ideas that don't pan out at all, and be able to address them without the game crumbling down around us. Early beta is where you start to address issues and tweak and balance things that just were not apparent with a much smaller group of testers. Later beta is where you start stress testing server load and look for problems that only arise when you have a game being played by roughly the same number of players you expect to be in the world after launch.
Anyway, I'll stop here. I've touched on a lot of things, a lot of philosophy behind how to build MMOs, how to avoid big mistakes, how to be efficient, how to know what to worry about now and what can be dealt with later. It's hard to make a single post that summarizes where we are at now and where we're headed, because it's all built on years and even decades of experience doing this sort of thing, seeing what works and what doesn't. But I tried to summarize it the best I could. Hopefully some of this makes some sense, and at the very least answers your question as to where the game is at now.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
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
You know I had to ask... but you aren't going to be tethering mobs are you? I mean, this is one that really rubs me the wrong way as it is the pinnacle of what has produced easy and fearless journey in games today. You remember in EQ that not knowing where the zone exit was or if it was too far away would create a massive pit of fear that welled up in your stomach when you realized you just agroed a mob you could not kill? The panic, the fear, the dread of recovery... Those are good times that to be honest.. I haven't felt in any other game since I left EQ and the reason is because everyone tethers mobs.
Other than that, good read and good job on making such progress!
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
But asking for resumes or qualifications from everyone is unnecessary and needlessly cumbersome. We do indeed ask for money in general if you want to help test during pre-alpha and alpha, and this is for two reasons:
1. to make sure you're serious about it (although you could simply be serious about previewing the game and not necessarily helping us test, but there's no getting around that) and
2. to help fund the game. I have no issue being up front about both and don't think it's mutually exclusive at all. If you pledge at a certain tier, you will be invited into pre-alpha and/or alpha testing. Is that a perk? It sure is, and it helps us fund this game and make sure it becomes a reality. We get testers and we raise money to help us make a great game -- it's a win-win.
Now if we were only using it to bring in money and to give people a 'sneak peek' of the game, then I do think your point would be valid. But we're not. In fact, you're responding to posts I've been making setting expectations and making sure people know that we are serious about testing, serious about making sure the game is ready for external testers, and that we will expect people to treat this as much more than merely a 'sneak peek'. By being up-front about this I think I am, respectfully, invalidating your assertion.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
It's your game and you can certainly gate it anyway you like. We will just have to disagree on this point as I will never be convinced that asking someone for money to test a game is a good idea.
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
If you don't agree, then you're one of the few. Don't pledge, don't donate, don't test. If you're "worried" that these people with money will ruin what may be a great game, then pledge and do something about it. Otherwise, respectfully or not, your reasoning is irrelevant.
Again. I'm glad that you agree that there is no correlation between paying $100 for a game sight unseen and your testing capability. Also, perhaps lost in your defensive overdrive was the clear statement that he could of course gate his game and test any way he wanted. It's his game after all. heck he can and HAS gated pre-alpha at $1000. I simply disagree with the assertion that paying or not paying to be a tester has any correlation to how good you would be. Glad you agree with me.
Edit to add- IMHO it would be better to just stick with his stated reason #2: "To help fund the game". Just be honest about it. Say, we think this is a commodity people are willing to pay for and as a start up we just need the money so it's a perk we throw in that our higher pledges get access to Pre-Alpha, Alpha and possibly beta based on their pledge amount.
I might not like that concept but it's a legit reason and totally understandable. You will NEVER convince me that your testing ability is in any way shape or form tied to the amount of money you pledge or don't pledge.
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
....Being Banned from MMORPG's forums since 2010, for Trolling the Trolls!!!
A person passionate about a game will research it no matter the cost,spending money is imo meaningless,it doesn't make the game better for you or anyone else.I seriously do not understand the mentality that people are putting into their decisions to just hand over money to game developers,but it happens and a lot.
I still see some games in Twitch that you couldn't pay me enough to play them,yet people sitting there playing them for multiple hours with others watching.I really feel people just like to feel a part of a crowd ,weather it is funding or playing a game,that is why a crap game has say Pewdiepie as a streamer all of a sudden it has mega people watching it,next day no pewdiepie no watchers.
Me i don't get into that aura of feeling a need for anything,likely why i won't waste my time on a Blizzcon or any crowd funding nor do i feel the need to have to play a game just for the crowd.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Heck I even pledged to Panthon on their Kickstarter at a level that would get me Alpha access. My ability or desire to test a game has ZERO to do with my ability to pay large sums of money.
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