We all complain when every new game that launches is a themepark. We all complain when a game tries to make us pay a sub fee for access to alpha/beta testing We all complain when game devs dont talk to us
Then, when a small indie company tries to do something different we only get more complaining. Is the release date probably going to get pushed back? Most likely. Can you get a copy of the game for as low as $15 to jump in and play it now/forever? Yep. Do the devs communicate and even post on forums other than their own? Yep.
Its still being worked on, its not released yet and the pricing seems to reflect this. I cant complain until I see the finished/released product.
The pricing reflects that this is a product being exchanged for money. It is okay to criticize it on its merits, and frankly the number of fans in this thread finding excuses why a product for sale ought to be immune from criticism are doing a much better job of indicting The Repopulation than I ever could.
My post was not about the level of jank or graphics or optimization, all of which have issues, but all of which an "it's not finished!" would be an appropriate rebuttal for. It was, I thought, a fairly direct attack on the ideas and principles underlying The Repopulation. Not only have the fans of this game not been able to rebut it, the developer of the game has also been unable to do so, when begged by one of their fans.
If you are having fun in this game, nobody is telling you to stop. But I think the reaction in this thread itself has shown that there is a great deal of merit to my complaints, and there is no magic wand that will cause those complaints to disappear before release in a couple of months. This is the game, love it or leave it. I left it.
Your opinion is valid from the first minute. But opinions are like... noses... everybody has one. I just dont get why you invested more hours in writing this post then playing the game. Repop offers more the more you invest into it. It sounds like its not your cup of tea. Fine. Move on any play something else and thanks for sharing your ... nose.
Surprisingly, it did not take me 10 hours to write that post. How slow do you type?
@Archwind: The game has not been released, it is in early access.
Isn't that kind of misleading that it is listed as released on Steam? I thought it meant you had released it as complete.
Thanks for clearing it up.
Don't you usually have a completed product for paying customers?
Finished product or not, they opened the door to allow public access.
It's fair game!
I LOL but agree. Usually but then this is a whole new frontier here with pay to develop something.
I agree that this is a new frontier, but in a way it's just like the old frontier. Games for a long while have been primarily about the monetization of hype more than actually producing a thing that is fun to play. The goal is to say in your best Pedro voice, "Buy my game and all your wildest dreams will come true." I think it's funny that someone earlier in the thread compared to me to Derek Smart: I think Smart's frustration mainly comes from the fact that this was his deal for a decade, and now everyone's getting in on the action.
You play the game by making big promises about a game where anything can happen. I remember when I was a kid people didn't really understand technological limits very well so you'd have people say things like, "Why does nobody make a game where the ending can be anything? Like if you do something to upset a guy, he'll get mad and then the ending can be he gets his revenge, but it's totally freeform." Obviously, that's not possible, but gamers have always been willing to shell out cash to someone willing to promise them otherwise, from Peter Molyneux to Derek Smart.
They're not stupid- they know the game won't deliver. They're paying for the right to anticipate the brave new world and their place in it. When the game comes out, they'll talk about how great it is, never play it, and pay for the next hype machine. For a long time, this hype machine was mainly about monetizing the actual game when it came out, but these days developers have caught onto the fact that they can charge people ahead of time- they can sell a game that doesn't even play yet because nobody was ever interested in buying the actual play.
In that sense, kickstarted and early access games will always be shielded from any real criticism, even if the shield is seriously flimsy, because nobody cares if it's actually bad. They just want to keep the hype train going all the way to release. When you rain on the parade, you're actually lowering the value of the purchase, by reducing the feeling of hype that they paid good money for.
I hate this new business model- I like playing games, and I want the games to be good. I'll always rain on a parade because this game should have been better, and it's only the monetization of anticipation that has allowed it to be worse. Above & Beyond has, to be frank, been badly served by these "fans". They will hugbox the game into an early grave because they were never interested in the product to begin with. And they will move onto the next big talker when they're done.
@Archwind: The game has not been released, it is in early access.
Isn't that kind of misleading that it is listed as released on Steam? I thought it meant you had released it as complete.
Thanks for clearing it up.
Don't you usually have a completed product for paying customers?
Finished product or not, they opened the door to allow public access.
It's fair game!
I LOL but agree. Usually but then this is a whole new frontier here with pay to develop something.
I agree that this is a new frontier, but in a way it's just like the old frontier. Games for a long while have been primarily about the monetization of hype more than actually producing a thing that is fun to play. The goal is to say in your best Pedro voice, "Buy my game and all your wildest dreams will come true." I think it's funny that someone earlier in the thread compared to me to Derek Smart: I think Smart's frustration mainly comes from the fact that this was his deal for a decade, and now everyone's getting in on the action.
You play the game by making big promises about a game where anything can happen. I remember when I was a kid people didn't really understand technological limits very well so you'd have people say things like, "Why does nobody make a game where the ending can be anything? Like if you do something to upset a guy, he'll get mad and then the ending can be he gets his revenge, but it's totally freeform." Obviously, that's not possible, but gamers have always been willing to shell out cash to someone willing to promise them otherwise, from Peter Molyneux to Derek Smart.
They're not stupid- they know the game won't deliver. They're paying for the right to anticipate the brave new world and their place in it. When the game comes out, they'll talk about how great it is, never play it, and pay for the next hype machine. For a long time, this hype machine was mainly about monetizing the actual game when it came out, but these days developers have caught onto the fact that they can charge people ahead of time- they can sell a game that doesn't even play yet because nobody was ever interested in buying the actual play.
In that sense, kickstarted and early access games will always be shielded from any real criticism, even if the shield is seriously flimsy, because nobody cares if it's actually bad. They just want to keep the hype train going all the way to release. When you rain on the parade, you're actually lowering the value of the purchase, by reducing the feeling of hype that they paid good money for.
I hate this new business model- I like playing games, and I want the games to be good. I'll always rain on a parade because this game should have been better, and it's only the monetization of anticipation that has allowed it to be worse. Above & Beyond has, to be frank, been badly served by these "fans". They will hugbox the game into an early grave because they were never interested in the product to begin with. And they will move onto the next big talker when they're done.
You're partly right here. The way the current trend is, hype is the driving the force to build the game without investor risks but if your expectations for something main stream out of anyone of these projects you will be sorely disappointed. The team size is just to small to produce it.
I have watched this project since 2005, back when the guys were 'just working on a hobby MMO with MMOKIt' (which they built) They do have skills to pull it off but they are trying to put to much into it for the team size. (just my 2 copper)
I have seen a number of these projects get to release and fall but maybe one out of 200 will make it.
When someone puts that much time in to typing a thread post about a game to tell us why it is bad and we should not play it, I typically go buy it immediately!
I don't agree with the early access trend, but buying a game you know is not finished then whining about it is on you.
If a company charges money for a product, then that company is welcoming any and all criticism of that product. Call it whining if you want to feel better, but Early Access is not an excuse for an inferior product, especially when there is a very specific reason it is typically called "early access," not "alpha testing," because practically every single game that releases at this point milks a little more money out of people to play what is, in all reality, the complete version of the game a few months (or in some cases years) early all under the laughable illusion of "alpha testing," or whatever. But don't worry... it's just alpha!
If the gaming industry keeps going the way it is going, it is going to burst, and it is going to burst bad. Consumers won't tolerate half baked nonsense getting shoveled out for pricetags upwards of $60. Not Repopulation specifically, just commenting on this whole EA fiasco the industry is going through. Developers are getting away with it because thanks to crowdfunding and lax consumer protection laws, they have absolutely zero to fear as they run to the bank with all of that good good kickstarter money (Stomping Land, anyone?)
Please visit my youtube channel for some H1Z1/DayZ casual roleplay videos!
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
what I always find funny here is the dev that posts and the rabid fans always say the same thing. This game might not be for you over and over. The devs cannot take criticism on this game without throwing that out there. They are going to keep saying that over and over while their game tanks in the process instead of actually listening to people who are generally expressing their opinions and not trolling. Part of the appeal of this game at least for me was a game similar to SWG but this game to me never ended up being anything remotely close to that game. If you got 100 rabid fans screaming loudly about not changing things or working on weak points and you have 1000 people who are on the fence but for some design flaws I think id much rather make the money from that 1000 people instead of a few fans.
72% of 692 reviews on steam are positive. Its now on my wishlist. Its been out on steam since Dec14 but after reading some reviews and watching a little game play I think it warrants some of my time.
Here's an interesting look at how its done on steam so far (if you are into stats as I am before I try a game) http://steamspy.com/app/322300
72% of 692 reviews on steam are positive. Its now on my wishlist. Its been out on steam since Dec14 but after reading some reviews and watching a little game play I think it warrants some of my time.
Here's an interesting look at how its done on steam so far (if you are into stats as I am before I try a game) http://steamspy.com/app/322300
The data you linked to show that about twice as many people have returned The Repopulation over the past two weeks as have played it.
EDIT: Actually, AT LEAST twice as many people, since obviously some people bought The Repopulation on those days when the number of people who owned the game dropped.
I don't agree with the early access trend, but buying a game you know is not finished then whining about it is on you.
100% agree. When you buy early access you aren't guaranteed you will like the finished product. It's a risk but when you purchase early access you should do enough research to make the risk worth it.
I love how people get personally offended because they don't like a game.
72% of 692 reviews on steam are positive. Its now on my wishlist. Its been out on steam since Dec14 but after reading some reviews and watching a little game play I think it warrants some of my time.
Here's an interesting look at how its done on steam so far (if you are into stats as I am before I try a game) http://steamspy.com/app/322300
The data you linked to show that about twice as many people have returned The Repopulation over the past two weeks as have played it.
EDIT: Actually, AT LEAST twice as many people, since obviously some people bought The Repopulation on those days when the number of people who owned the game dropped.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
@MrSnuffles: Perhaps you should look at other Early Access MMOs with future wipes before you make that statement. Really only a few examples of them and Repops player counts and numbers compare favorable. It's tough to get players to log in day after day to alpha test a game when they know their characters will be wiped. Some players can log thousands of hours that way but most will play to try the game, then pop in from time to time to monitor progress until launch.
Probably the closest comparison there is to Repop at this stage being a Kickstarted game (albeit one with a star studded team, which has obtained quite a bit more funding than Repop) is Shroud of the Avatar, which hit early access a month before Repop. Both had already been through Kickstarter and had a standalone client available for testing beforehand (whose numbers do not appear on steamcharts unless they are using the Steam client in both cases). And it should also be noted those those players counts are simultaneous Steam players at any given time, not players per day. In that time though Repop's player numbers were higher than Shroud of the Avatar's in all but one month. Review wise they are also similar, Repop having a 73% positive rating out of 694 reviews and SoTA having a 71% positive rating out of 583 reviews). I'm a backer of SoTA myself, and love the progress they've made over the past year. But like most MMO players, even if I had the time to play more, it would be hard to justify spending much time in an alpha. I've logged very little time in the game at all.
So what other Steam MMOs can we really compare it to? There aren't a whole lot. What does really well on Steam early access are survival games, MMOs are tougher generally due to wipes. The only other MMO which has done better than those titles on Early Access alpha is Tree of Life, which did a great job of marketing and got off to big numbers is Tree of Life, which has been well received, positive reviews, and in a short period of time it sold more copies than SoTA or Repop on Steam (43k in a few months). It quickly peaked at an average of nearly 1500 players per day, and a peak of 3656 (compare that to Repop's peak average of 238 and a peak of 492 in an 11 day month over Christmas). 2 1/2 months later it is averaging 119 players a day with a peak count of 229. Within the same 9 month time period after hitting early access Landmark's player counts were down to 11% of the initial counts (and its been well below Repops numbers since we hit Steam). If you look at the other early access MMO titles, they all fare worse.
The point here isn't to say that any of those games are struggling, or aren't good games, or anything of that nature. It's to point out that while some players here want to try to show some steamchart numbers to try to show that a game is struggling, when you compare to other similar products this isn't the case.
And with regards to the maybe the game is not for you comment. Anyone who suggests that we are close minded in listening to user feedback is fooling themselves. User suggestions are constantly being integrated into the game. However, there is a reality when you deal with a title like Repop. This game will not be for everyone. Some players will want real shooter combat and will be disappointed with action mode. Some players need more guidance like in a theme park game. Some would rather see less complexity and a more mainstream title. Others do not want to see any type of PvP options, etc. Even if you eliminate the whole alpha testing thing and fast forward to launch when bugs are squashed and the game reaches the complete level of polish, it will not be for everyone. As a developer your choice is to make a more mainstream game, or to accept that is the case. So while you can be receptive to a lot of feedback, there are certain things that will not change and if players can not accept those things they are better off finding a different game.
Snuffles is the resident Negative Nelly it seems. Between his concern trolling and that outright sneering hatred its pretty hard to read these threads.
If a company charges money for a product, then that company is welcoming any and all criticism of that product.
But on the other hand... If you don't like a game and don't care about it, yet spend a lot of time trashing it in comments, what is that called?
Criticism =/= Trolling. I've yet to see fans of any MMO able to tolerate people who are guilty of the sin of disliking the game they like.
Someone who dislikes a game is allowed to make a topic citing the reasons they dislike it. If that annoys people who can't handle reading a negative opinion of their game, perhaps that defensive reaction is due to them not liking the game as much as they want others to think.
Comments
Isn't that kind of misleading that it is listed as released on Steam? I thought it meant you had released it as complete.
Thanks for clearing it up.
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
Finished product or not, they opened the door to allow public access.
It's fair game!
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
My post was not about the level of jank or graphics or optimization, all of which have issues, but all of which an "it's not finished!" would be an appropriate rebuttal for. It was, I thought, a fairly direct attack on the ideas and principles underlying The Repopulation. Not only have the fans of this game not been able to rebut it, the developer of the game has also been unable to do so, when begged by one of their fans.
If you are having fun in this game, nobody is telling you to stop. But I think the reaction in this thread itself has shown that there is a great deal of merit to my complaints, and there is no magic wand that will cause those complaints to disappear before release in a couple of months. This is the game, love it or leave it. I left it.
Surprisingly, it did not take me 10 hours to write that post. How slow do you type?
You play the game by making big promises about a game where anything can happen. I remember when I was a kid people didn't really understand technological limits very well so you'd have people say things like, "Why does nobody make a game where the ending can be anything? Like if you do something to upset a guy, he'll get mad and then the ending can be he gets his revenge, but it's totally freeform." Obviously, that's not possible, but gamers have always been willing to shell out cash to someone willing to promise them otherwise, from Peter Molyneux to Derek Smart.
They're not stupid- they know the game won't deliver. They're paying for the right to anticipate the brave new world and their place in it. When the game comes out, they'll talk about how great it is, never play it, and pay for the next hype machine. For a long time, this hype machine was mainly about monetizing the actual game when it came out, but these days developers have caught onto the fact that they can charge people ahead of time- they can sell a game that doesn't even play yet because nobody was ever interested in buying the actual play.
In that sense, kickstarted and early access games will always be shielded from any real criticism, even if the shield is seriously flimsy, because nobody cares if it's actually bad. They just want to keep the hype train going all the way to release. When you rain on the parade, you're actually lowering the value of the purchase, by reducing the feeling of hype that they paid good money for.
I hate this new business model- I like playing games, and I want the games to be good. I'll always rain on a parade because this game should have been better, and it's only the monetization of anticipation that has allowed it to be worse. Above & Beyond has, to be frank, been badly served by these "fans". They will hugbox the game into an early grave because they were never interested in the product to begin with. And they will move onto the next big talker when they're done.
You're partly right here. The way the current trend is, hype is the driving the force to build the game without investor risks but if your expectations for something main stream out of anyone of these projects you will be sorely disappointed. The team size is just to small to produce it.
I have watched this project since 2005, back when the guys were 'just working on a hobby MMO with MMOKIt' (which they built) They do have skills to pull it off but they are trying to put to much into it for the team size. (just my 2 copper)
I have seen a number of these projects get to release and fall but maybe one out of 200 will make it.
We'll have to wait/see.
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
What you're effectively saying is, "your opinion is invalid if you dislike a game purchased in early access."
If the gaming industry keeps going the way it is going, it is going to burst, and it is going to burst bad. Consumers won't tolerate half baked nonsense getting shoveled out for pricetags upwards of $60. Not Repopulation specifically, just commenting on this whole EA fiasco the industry is going through. Developers are getting away with it because thanks to crowdfunding and lax consumer protection laws, they have absolutely zero to fear as they run to the bank with all of that good good kickstarter money (Stomping Land, anyone?)
Please visit my youtube channel for some H1Z1/DayZ casual roleplay videos!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrQoK5VZlwBBzpsksmXtjMQ
It's Early Access and no one seems to play it because it isn't really that good. That's all i will say.
[source for the statistics]
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Here's an interesting look at how its done on steam so far (if you are into stats as I am before I try a game)
http://steamspy.com/app/322300
EDIT: Actually, AT LEAST twice as many people, since obviously some people bought The Repopulation on those days when the number of people who owned the game dropped.
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Probably the closest comparison there is to Repop at this stage being a Kickstarted game (albeit one with a star studded team, which has obtained quite a bit more funding than Repop) is Shroud of the Avatar, which hit early access a month before Repop. Both had already been through Kickstarter and had a standalone client available for testing beforehand (whose numbers do not appear on steamcharts unless they are using the Steam client in both cases). And it should also be noted those those players counts are simultaneous Steam players at any given time, not players per day. In that time though Repop's player numbers were higher than Shroud of the Avatar's in all but one month. Review wise they are also similar, Repop having a 73% positive rating out of 694 reviews and SoTA having a 71% positive rating out of 583 reviews). I'm a backer of SoTA myself, and love the progress they've made over the past year. But like most MMO players, even if I had the time to play more, it would be hard to justify spending much time in an alpha. I've logged very little time in the game at all.
So what other Steam MMOs can we really compare it to? There aren't a whole lot. What does really well on Steam early access are survival games, MMOs are tougher generally due to wipes. The only other MMO which has done better than those titles on Early Access alpha is Tree of Life, which did a great job of marketing and got off to big numbers is Tree of Life, which has been well received, positive reviews, and in a short period of time it sold more copies than SoTA or Repop on Steam (43k in a few months). It quickly peaked at an average of nearly 1500 players per day, and a peak of 3656 (compare that to Repop's peak average of 238 and a peak of 492 in an 11 day month over Christmas). 2 1/2 months later it is averaging 119 players a day with a peak count of 229. Within the same 9 month time period after hitting early access Landmark's player counts were down to 11% of the initial counts (and its been well below Repops numbers since we hit Steam). If you look at the other early access MMO titles, they all fare worse.
The point here isn't to say that any of those games are struggling, or aren't good games, or anything of that nature. It's to point out that while some players here want to try to show some steamchart numbers to try to show that a game is struggling, when you compare to other similar products this isn't the case.
And with regards to the maybe the game is not for you comment. Anyone who suggests that we are close minded in listening to user feedback is fooling themselves. User suggestions are constantly being integrated into the game. However, there is a reality when you deal with a title like Repop. This game will not be for everyone. Some players will want real shooter combat and will be disappointed with action mode. Some players need more guidance like in a theme park game. Some would rather see less complexity and a more mainstream title. Others do not want to see any type of PvP options, etc. Even if you eliminate the whole alpha testing thing and fast forward to launch when bugs are squashed and the game reaches the complete level of polish, it will not be for everyone. As a developer your choice is to make a more mainstream game, or to accept that is the case. So while you can be receptive to a lot of feedback, there are certain things that will not change and if players can not accept those things they are better off finding a different game.
https://www.therepopulation.com - Sci Fi Sandbox.
But on the other hand... If you don't like a game and don't care about it, yet spend a lot of time trashing it in comments, what is that called?
Someone who dislikes a game is allowed to make a topic citing the reasons they dislike it. If that annoys people who can't handle reading a negative opinion of their game, perhaps that defensive reaction is due to them not liking the game as much as they want others to think.
Opinion vs. opinion. Bring it on.