After Internal Playtest of EA Alpha Build, 'It Just Ain't Ready Yet' - Wild West Online - MMORPG.com

SBFord

After Internal Playtest of EA Alpha Build, 'It Just Ain't Ready Yet' - Wild West Online - MMORPG.com

Wild West Online News - The Wild West Online team has a new post on the game's Facebook page to let players know that the Early Access Alpha build of the game "just ain't ready yet". The news came after the development team ran an internal playthrough session. According to the post, developers want the next time that players enter the game to be a great experience and for that to happen, certain critical elements need to be addressed. "People want a game that's better & more complete, not just early".

Read the full story here

Panther2103

This game is running on the engine developed by Sergey Titov. I'm not surprised it has issues. Plus every single thing I've seen on the game reminds me of The War Z with a wild west theme. I'm really hoping that isn't how it actually is, but honestly I'm not going to be surprised when this game ultimately fails.

Wizardry

I originally was sort of excited for this game,i thought it looked to have some real potential,now i am not so sure.

First of all ,i commend the team for acknowledging it "ain't ready yet"however ,were they not saying that with the Early ACCESS proclamation?
So to me reading outside the small bubble,this is straight out admitting the EA gimmick is nothing more than a gimmick,they actually feel they are selling a finished product but just using EA as an excuse for failure.

In case i lost anyone in the last 3 sentences,let me repeat WHY would you need to post this if you already said it was EARLY access?Like do they feel a month or two or a few weeks of game development turns a game from EA to finished?

SpottyGekko

"It just ain't ready yet !"

They needed an internal playtest to figure this out ? 0.o

But no worries, it's definitely ready to sell Early Access !

Panther2103

Wizardry said:

I originally was sort of excited for this game,i thought it looked to have some real potential,now i am not so sure.

First of all ,i commend the team for acknowledging it "ain't ready yet"however ,were they not saying that with the Early ACCESS proclamation?
So to me reading outside the small bubble,this is straight out admitting the EA gimmick is nothing more than a gimmick,they actually feel they are selling a finished product but just using EA as an excuse for failure.

In case i lost anyone in the last 3 sentences,let me repeat WHY would you need to post this if you already said it was EARLY access?Like do they feel a month or two or a few weeks of game development turns a game from EA to finished?

I think what you are saying makes sense. However if you look at it from the developers point of view, I don't think it's so much as using it as a way to block out failure, but more of a way for people to see what they have so far in the game. You can't just release a game in any state into early access, because then you get a lot of people who pay for it saying WHAT THE HELL IS THIS to anything game breaking in early access. I feel like maybe the game wasn't stable enough to even put out into early access and they didn't realize that until putting all the pieces together. 

I'm sure some companies have used early access as a shield to deflect a failing games performance, but in most it seems like they are just trying to avoid a shitstorm of negativity towards their game if it isn't in a stable state.

Albatroes

I remember a time when most people were actually excited about an actual release of a game and not excited over paying to test a game for a company, but I guess everything changes overtime. Founder's packs, pre-orders with alpha/beta access, early access being considered alpha/not being considered alpha, companies releasing paid dlc/even having cash shops while in Early access lol. I'm pretty sure most older games dont miss the old game content as much as they miss the gaming integrity that companies used to have. Every developer feels they should break away from a major company and make the game "they and the fans always wanted" while most of them end up being cash grabs/failures. Change isn't always bad, but it definitely isn't always good.

Raquis

I had hopes for this game, they are so scared they make something that will be too good so people will not buy their other crap.

Talonsin

My guess is they had alot of people ask for refunds so decided to bring it back in and work on things a bit more.  They had way too aggressive a release schedule in their initial plans.

Slapshot1188

Torval said:

Talonsin said:

My guess is they had alot of people ask for refunds so decided to bring it back in and work on things a bit more.  They had way too aggressive a release schedule in their initial plans.

That's true, but they got valuable feedback. The earlier they can find out what's right and wrong with their system the cheaper and less impactful it is to fix it. Their schedule might have been a bit too aggressive but that's okay. It can be adjusted. It's what they actually do with the feedback that matters.

There are a few things about this game that put me off so I'll not likely buy in until after it launches and only if it turns out well. I'm more of a Red Dead 3 kind of guy anyway unless that goes full survival multiplayer too, then I'm going to pass.

A bit too aggressive? LOL...

It was a joke. And sure it can be adjusted but then they should also reopen their "refund window". If you significantly delay a game because of the ridiculous development timeline you should allow those folks who based their purchase on your stated delivery timeframe a chance to get a refund.

Dakeru

Torval said:

Albatroes said:

I remember a time when most people were actually excited about an actual release of a game and not excited over paying to test a game for a company, but I guess everything changes overtime. Founder's packs, pre-orders with alpha/beta access, early access being considered alpha/not being considered alpha, companies releasing paid dlc/even having cash shops while in Early access lol. I'm pretty sure most older games dont miss the old game content as much as they miss the gaming integrity that companies used to have. Every developer feels they should break away from a major company and make the game "they and the fans always wanted" while most of them end up being cash grabs/failures. Change isn't always bad, but it definitely isn't always good.

I'm pretty sure for those of us who did do testing it was pretty exciting getting in. Just most of you didn't get in so there wasn't much buzz, that and they were under NDA so there wasn't much buzz. People did want in though and there was always a lot of talk around getting a test selection email. 

Your post is the quintessential "rose colored glasesses" view. There hasn't been a dramatic shift in integrity over the past few years. There's been a dramatic shift in social connectivity and communication to discuss these things. Back in the day people like you complained about all the stuff you are now only from the other side - why do scummy developers not let everyone test, what are they hiding, they're all scammers, etc. How do you think we got where we are today with early access and open testing? Did you forget this is the cake you asked for a decade ago? Eat up.

MightyUnclean

Didn't they claim that this would be ready for commercial launch within a year? Did anyone actually believe that shit?