August 1st Marks the Start of the Final Beta Phase!

SBFord

August 1st Marks the Start of the Final Beta Phase!

On August 1 it’s time to reset the clocks: Albion Online from Sandbox Interactive goes into the Final Beta phase and includes exciting new features and improvements.

Read the full story here

marganculos

so 1.aug is last wipe? no wipe after that?

Panther2103

marganculos said:

so 1.aug is last wipe? no wipe after that?

As far as I know and what I've read, they are having a wipe after this beta phase as well to prepare for launch. I keep seeing them say 4 weeks after the last beta phase is when launch comes but I can't seem to find solid info about it.

Cramit845

It's the last beta! but still a beta... So basically they might release sometime this year. Might start playing if I can pull away from uthgard.

Gromzok

DMKano said:

Once the company decides to never wipe the database again - the game is launched.

What they call it (beta, pre-release or whatever) is irrelevant. 

No wipe = launch

But Albion Online is getting wipe after this beta before launch...

bigcracker

This game is really fun and they added a lot of content. I stopped playing because of the wipes. They will wipe the game 1 more time before release so I might just play a little so I do not get burnt out.

Phaserlight

"Albion Online is the first game that brings the full PC-experience to tablets."

(sigh)

March 9, 2011: http://androidcommunity.com/vendetta-online-for-android-motorola-xoom-review-video-20110309/



A little bit of history here, folks.

tixylix

I'll care when it's on iPad.

blackgoat

"as well as the gold bought through the website credited to their game account."....

very sad....

toomuch4212

So hopefully launch would be September 1st then. Theoretically. And hopefully the iPad version launches exactly at full launch as well...

Frammshamm

toomuch4212 said:

So hopefully launch would be September 1st then. Theoretically. And hopefully the iPad version launches exactly at full launch as well...

No way the launch will be Sept 1. Thats not enough time to grind out and see how the end tier balance works out. This is almost a whole new game since the beginning of this beta phase. There will inevitably be dozens of more problems. This Beta phase will be extended numerous times for new content updates. Plan on this beta lasting at least 6 months.

MadFrenchie

Torval said:

DMKano said:

Once the company decides to never wipe the database again - the game is launched.

What they call it (beta, pre-release or whatever) is irrelevant. 

No wipe = launch

For every complex situation or problem there is a simple answer that is as equally wrong as it is simple.

A game may be launched but the "pre-release" "beta" or whatever other warning tags added to the game aren't irrelevant. They're pertinent and can be indicators of the experience. They may not be done adding final features. They may dramatically change class balance or the implementation of game systems. You of all people should know that those tags aren't irrelevant.

I understand your points, but I can understand DMKano's sentiment as well; titles like the perpetually Early Access H1Z1 have led to a bad taste in many gamers' mouth regarding the often superfluous "stages" developers are using to make profit without actually ever providing an experience that could reasonably be qualified as gold.

I'm not a fan of these kinds of superfluous labels and the way many developers have taken the opportunity to milk cash from gamers while delivering a relatively sub-par experience, continuing to claim the title is a work in progress. It just screams "avoiding accountability" to the playerbases that bought in expecting leaps and bounds in feature development when they really only make baby steps.

At some point, we have to stop taking these labels at face value and hold the developers accountable to what they're offering players all the while enjoying profits on the same level as games that are, in fact, in an adequately completed state.

With that said, I agree it's not black and white. However, since developers seem to be continually abusing (in my opinion) the grey area offered today, I think it would be in the best interest for journalistic sites such as this one to create a line that, once crossed, enables us to hold developers to the kind of accuntability they should rightfully meet when they market and profit off of titles in a manner consistent with "release" state products.

Koboli

Everything I've read about AO says it is "meh" - a solid game that doesn't really do anything new or particularly innovative, which is ultimately hamstrung by its top-down perspective. I'll pass.

FelixMajor

I'm not really inclined to play anymore until release as the game is a giant grind, so why bother if you get wiped in a months time?

Ozmodan

Torval said:

DMKano said:

Once the company decides to never wipe the database again - the game is launched.

What they call it (beta, pre-release or whatever) is irrelevant. 

No wipe = launch

For every complex situation or problem there is a simple answer that is as equally wrong as it is simple.

A game may be launched but the "pre-release" "beta" or whatever other warning tags added to the game aren't irrelevant. They're pertinent and can be indicators of the experience. They may not be done adding final features. They may dramatically change class balance or the implementation of game systems. You of all people should know that those tags aren't irrelevant.

 It is obvious to anyone that when you stop wiping the data, you are launching the product. 

As to Albion,  taking a wait and see about the game.

marksteele

Damn this game has gone through so many iterations from when it was first launched. I got burned out a few beta's in but I think I'm going to give it another shot for this beta as a casual player. Then I'll go hardcore for launch

Tiamat64

Ozmodan said:

Torval said:

DMKano said:

Once the company decides to never wipe the database again - the game is launched.

What they call it (beta, pre-release or whatever) is irrelevant. 

No wipe = launch

For every complex situation or problem there is a simple answer that is as equally wrong as it is simple.

A game may be launched but the "pre-release" "beta" or whatever other warning tags added to the game aren't irrelevant. They're pertinent and can be indicators of the experience. They may not be done adding final features. They may dramatically change class balance or the implementation of game systems. You of all people should know that those tags aren't irrelevant.

 It is obvious to anyone that when you stop wiping the data, you are launching the product. 

As to Albion,  taking a wait and see about the game.

Just as another reminder to everyone though, Albion still has one wipe to go, so it's still in beta anyways under any definition of the term (as it relates to wiping).

MadFrenchie

Torval said:

So should they not put the label on there? Should they not allow people to buy in and play the game if they want? What exactly does it mean to stop taking the labels at face value and to hold developers accountable? Accountable how? Who gets to decide the criteria, judge the games, and enforce penalties? How is that supposed to work?

It's easy to make a claim that it's released and that is supposed to mean something, but the allusions are always vague and inconsequential or broad sweeping statements.

I think we have all the power to do that now. I see a ton of games on Steam and GoG with Early Access tags. I tend to skip over them. I don't have to play the game now if I don't think it's good enough or I don't have confidence in the developer. When I see a tag like that I tend to think they haven't got it all worked out and I may not feel like dealing with their experimentation.

Do you suggest that games shouldn't provide warning labels like "early access" or "beta" to let players know their development isn't set in stone and is in a state of flux?

I'm an advocate of gaming journalism sites taking the stand for their consumers.

I think I recall @BillMurphy doing so for Pantheon a while back, but I don't remember what the criteria was for his article on the game.

We all know Early Access and the marketing of beta access is here to stay.  And we all know that there are titles that use those labels responsibly and those that do not.  That's why I admitted it's not black and white.  To me, it's more involved.  Take a look at the developers own words, their advertised vision for the game.  Include any features they've downright stated won't make it into the game by release (or at all) due to limitations.  Then, compare that to how they monetize their games.  If they monetize like a release product (B2P clients and subscriptions would be included here); then it's free reign to judge the title as a release based on its merits.

That would obviously require updating said judgement if major updates and fixes happened for the game, and I understand this is a lot of work.  However, since Bill and the gang have been including many other genres in their coverage for lack of news in MMORPGs, I think they would have time to consistently update EA/"fool's gold" titles.

More importantly than that, prominently and publicly detail what the journalistic sites classify as "release state" titles and why they choose to judge those games as they would a standard release title.

jonp200

Hey look. We are commenting on a paid advertisement.

With that said, I played it the current beta and wasn't all that impressed which means I was stupid enough to pay for an unfinished product. I was unimpressed enough that I'm not all that motivated to even see the "finished" product so these perpetual betas are a double-edged sword for the developer. I judged it in the state it was when I purchased it and I deemed it unworthy I will likely not take another look at it.