I'm a non-Elitist Alpha.
Is this a rip off? Or is this Frontier first encounters all over again?
- Thread starter sporadic_kit
- Start date
I'm a non-Elitist Alpha.
+1 for humourI needed that
Seriously though, ED is not pay to win. It's pay to play. You pay the retail price to play on release day. If you want to play before that, you have to pay the beta or alpha fee - and thus you accept that there may be unforseen problems, bugs, and of course you only get an incomplete game early on.
ED would be pay to win if you could only get that Class 7 plasma cannon via a USD $5 microtransaction, or if the best heatsinks were a "consumable" that you have to pay real money for, making them a game-winner for anyone who forks over extra cash.
Yes, Mechwarrior Online and Hawken, I'm looking at you...
Ok, then I am mistaken. I guess during backer's app it was still donation.
As a previous Amiga user I can only say, let it go!
This and similar threads bring to mind the phrase 'you can't please all the people all the time'. Star Citizen and Shroud of the Avatar send me more communication, but the impression those communications give is that they are trying to weadle more money out of me.
Not the first time I've said this, but I would be grateful if posters stop trying to claim majority community support for opinions that are their own.
PS I checked the KickStarter and as I thought all delivery dates were 'estimated'.
Last edited:
You book a flight and know its published estimated flight time is 12 hours. You board the flight and 12 hours in, you notice you haven't landed. Other passengers also notice this and the cabin crew inform the captain that economy class are getting anxious and angry. The Captain informs the crew member that its all under control and he will shortly make an announcement to the passengers explaining the situation. A few moments later he activates the PA system and says .. 'This is the captain speaking. We will be landing, when we ready to land."
At such times its a good idea to step back and get an objective perspective on the matter. Here is Kickstarter's own advice to any project running under their scheme ;
What do I do if I miss my Estimated Delivery Date?
The Estimated Delivery Date is intended to set expectations for backers on when they will receive rewards. Setbacks are common to any project, and creative ones especially. When the unforeseen occurs, creators are expected to post a project update explaining the situation. Sharing the story, speed bumps and all, is part of the Kickstarter experience.
Creators who are honest and transparent will find backers to be far more forgiving. We’ve all felt the urge to avoid things when we feel bad about them, but leaving backers in the dark makes them assume the worst. It not only reflects badly on the project, it’s disrespectful to the support that community has given and to other Kickstarter creators. Regular communication is a must.
So the question is that as estimatated delivery dates have already been missed, have the backers involved in these slips been left in the darK?
Being left in the dark means not being informed directly via email, or via the project's main page (elite.frontier.co.uk), that there has been a delay and the reasons for that delay. It does not include some forum comment made by a FD dev or manager. Respectfully, these discussion forums should not be used to communicate significant information to backers because there is no assurance that the information will be seen by a backer. The obvious method is via email, the same method used to deliver other information such as the backer news letters. There seems to be no means for FD to deliver messages to specific backers, or groups of backers, via their "Backer's Login" which exists on their main page.
As of today, we know that over 3,000 backers who pledged at or above the "£100 - Participate in the first round private beta test", have already missed their estimated delivery dates for the 1st round Beta.
By the end of Feburary, another 5,000 backers who pledged at or above the "£50 - Participate in the second round private beta test", but below the £100 level, will also miss their estimated delivery dates.
Thus based on Kickstarter's own objective opinion, if these 3,000 backers (and soon to become 8,000 backers) did not receive a project update explaining the delay, it reflects badly on the project and is disrespectful to the backers.
This 'project update' concerning the missed estimates does not take alot of effort, and costs next to nothing, except perhaps some lost pride. The value of that lost pride needs to be assessed next to the value of the lost backer respect. Perhaps FD are hoping that in time, everything will be forgotton once the backers get their hands on the gamma. Till then, if this silence continues, theres bound to be some passenger triggered tuburlance on this long flight.
I think if FD made regular official announcements about project timeframes, it would help them more than harm them. Not much to ask for, but it would go a long way in helping us backers understand the delays and their reasons, and thus allow us to be more forgiving.
At such times its a good idea to step back and get an objective perspective on the matter. Here is Kickstarter's own advice to any project running under their scheme ;
What do I do if I miss my Estimated Delivery Date?
The Estimated Delivery Date is intended to set expectations for backers on when they will receive rewards. Setbacks are common to any project, and creative ones especially. When the unforeseen occurs, creators are expected to post a project update explaining the situation. Sharing the story, speed bumps and all, is part of the Kickstarter experience.
Creators who are honest and transparent will find backers to be far more forgiving. We’ve all felt the urge to avoid things when we feel bad about them, but leaving backers in the dark makes them assume the worst. It not only reflects badly on the project, it’s disrespectful to the support that community has given and to other Kickstarter creators. Regular communication is a must.
So the question is that as estimatated delivery dates have already been missed, have the backers involved in these slips been left in the darK?
Being left in the dark means not being informed directly via email, or via the project's main page (elite.frontier.co.uk), that there has been a delay and the reasons for that delay. It does not include some forum comment made by a FD dev or manager. Respectfully, these discussion forums should not be used to communicate significant information to backers because there is no assurance that the information will be seen by a backer. The obvious method is via email, the same method used to deliver other information such as the backer news letters. There seems to be no means for FD to deliver messages to specific backers, or groups of backers, via their "Backer's Login" which exists on their main page.
As of today, we know that over 3,000 backers who pledged at or above the "£100 - Participate in the first round private beta test", have already missed their estimated delivery dates for the 1st round Beta.
By the end of Feburary, another 5,000 backers who pledged at or above the "£50 - Participate in the second round private beta test", but below the £100 level, will also miss their estimated delivery dates.
Thus based on Kickstarter's own objective opinion, if these 3,000 backers (and soon to become 8,000 backers) did not receive a project update explaining the delay, it reflects badly on the project and is disrespectful to the backers.
This 'project update' concerning the missed estimates does not take alot of effort, and costs next to nothing, except perhaps some lost pride. The value of that lost pride needs to be assessed next to the value of the lost backer respect. Perhaps FD are hoping that in time, everything will be forgotton once the backers get their hands on the gamma. Till then, if this silence continues, theres bound to be some passenger triggered tuburlance on this long flight.
I think if FD made regular official announcements about project timeframes, it would help them more than harm them. Not much to ask for, but it would go a long way in helping us backers understand the delays and their reasons, and thus allow us to be more forgiving.
Interesting post. Does your company (is there any reason we shouldn't know which company it is?) actually do development itself, or is it sub-contracted?
What was the tolerance for money, time and quality?
Just interested. :smilie:
Can't help feeling a better analogy would be three flights on the one plane, where one has taken off on time and two have been delayed because the first flight is taking longer than expected.
I just went to have a look at the KS page and cannot see the words "donate" or "donation" anywhere. Lots of "pledge" though! But it's just semantics though isn't it? Pledge, donate or purchase, we all handed over money as part of a contract, in exchange for goods.
That's pay to play then.
I can't see a P2W thing here either, other than perhaps Alpha players may be slightly better pilots than those that come in at a later time due to longer hands-on experience with the game.
I think I might be. Should I be concerned?
Last edited:
It's normal to have a diminishing price for later access, you don't need Kickstarter or an Alpha phase for that, you just need a game release.
No it isn't just semantics, words are used to describe different ideas. A donation is very different to a purchase.
Anybody interested in the details around this question might want to check back to my post at #103 (not a link). Alternatively you might want to look up 'pledge' in Collins English Thesaurus. Tell you what - here's a link:
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/pledge?showCookiePolicy=false
I would respectfully refer you to the text at: verb (2) ...... again.....
Squicker
S
In Europe that does mean someone who *bought* beta, as the Paypal poster above you appears to have, can cancel and get a refund any time up until beta is delivered. This is because beta is not a tangible (goods) but is a service, and a service can be cancelled any time up until it commences, if truly bought (from the store which is now live).
So yes, they are not tied to promised dates, but European store customers could get refunded anytime they liked. I think Aus and NZ are similarly protected but not the USA.
Would it be enough to stand up in court if there was a dispute, do you think?
Squicker
S
I resent the assertion that I do any sucking of any kind...!
As I was flicking back through the forum I re-read this sentence in my own post and had to do a double-take!! I guess that shows we have minds like sewers!
Which position would you prefer to defend:
I purchased Elite from FD.
I donated to enable Elite to be made.
And /I/ got into trouble for saying poo!
We backed ED in the sense we are putting our money in a project as stakeholders, not shareholders. In my perspective it is a bindable contract, where FD has to deliver the referred pledge rewards and we part with our cash.
Nonetheless, we also acknowledge that those rewards depend on a still to be deployed development project, and there are risks in terms of quality, actual product and, of course, delivery time.
So far we have an already working prototype (the alpha version). Does anyone here believes that FD is not going to deliver ED?
Yes, there are some "delays" compared to the original estimation, but that is not really surprising. Could FD have a simple communication panel to all backers stating something like:
"Alpha phase 1.0: delivered;
Beta 1.0: estimated to late March 2014;
Beta 2.0: estimated to one month after Beta 1.0 is delivered;
Gamma: estimated to 1 month after Beta 2.0 (June 2014)
Current public game status: Alpha 2.0: multiplayer
All the estimated dates can be changed without further notice: should be read a mere estimations, not commitments"
Would the backers that come to the forums actually have more information than they currently have? Not really. Does it looks better? Yep it does.
On a side note, FD started a Alpha forum thread where they state what is being fixed/incorporated for the next alpha build. Good idea.
Nonetheless, we also acknowledge that those rewards depend on a still to be deployed development project, and there are risks in terms of quality, actual product and, of course, delivery time.
So far we have an already working prototype (the alpha version). Does anyone here believes that FD is not going to deliver ED?
Yes, there are some "delays" compared to the original estimation, but that is not really surprising. Could FD have a simple communication panel to all backers stating something like:
"Alpha phase 1.0: delivered;
Beta 1.0: estimated to late March 2014;
Beta 2.0: estimated to one month after Beta 1.0 is delivered;
Gamma: estimated to 1 month after Beta 2.0 (June 2014)
Current public game status: Alpha 2.0: multiplayer
All the estimated dates can be changed without further notice: should be read a mere estimations, not commitments"
Would the backers that come to the forums actually have more information than they currently have? Not really. Does it looks better? Yep it does.
On a side note, FD started a Alpha forum thread where they state what is being fixed/incorporated for the next alpha build. Good idea.
Squicker
S
So yeah, a lot of what you say below is valid, I've picked some bits out:
Every time but of course, the term 'like' has to be tied to something measurable, and that is the crux of your - very valid - discourse. We'll only get milestone payments for closure of stage boundaries, all approved by the client. But, you're right in that games are subjective whereas we obviously fill our project with measurable functional and non-functional requirements, so there can be no fighting when it's time for the fat lady to sing and the client to cough the cash!
So I think this is a really important distinction you have made here. What does this really mean to us backers? Pyros may love the released ED and I may hate it, or vice-versa. Who is right? Well, neither and both of us. Can I ask for my backing money to be returned because I do not like the released ED? No, and I'll look like a total **** for even trying. But, when I bought X-Rebirth I *did* get a refund. Not because I did not like it (although I didn't, it was utter toilet), but because I could prove to Steam that it did not meet certain functional requirements, that really are base requirements of law in most countries; it wouldn't even run correctly.
Absolutely. So, for a corporate project there will be regular exec updates etc and the user community will see key milestones. But yes, there's a massive project plan and then individual team plans with tasks such as 'deploy VMs', 'deploy software' etc etc. These plans are actually always published unless there's a sensitivity\legal reason not to, because you never know who wants to look at them, but the main point of focus for a client will usually be key milestones.
True but sadly, fantastic products don't usually arrive from badly executed project. The example you cited - the history of which I was unaware of - is probably a rarity. Usually, a badly conceived and\or run project just gets worse and worse the longer it runs, and more and more is descoped from the end product in order to offset the extended cost of resource over time, which mean the product quality suffers immensely. The old quality triangle so beloved of project managers.
And I'll just remind everyone again, I wasn't specifically comparing games to enterprise projects, I was combatting the statement made by another poster that, *all software releases* are late. That's how this specific branch of the thread has come about, because I refute this 'all software releases' catch all and I dislike a culture where failure to deliver is seen as somehow acceptable. Remember, each time a project slips outside tolerance, it's ripe for being canned because it has to be revalidated as, "is it still worth doing this?". So everytime a PM lets something slip (perhaps he cannot help it, sure) he's putting all his team's jobs on the line as well as risking customer disatisfaction because the plug is pulled.
For example, ED could get pulled if it slips long enough, because that £2m KS pot won't last for infinite alpha test runs...
So, for me, ED can come out in 2017 for all I care, it's not like there is a dearth of good games in the world. But the comms needs to be better, I don't care about a timeline at all, but I want to know why it's slipped, and I'd certainly like to understand progress against this thing that has caused it to slip. Because if I don't see good progress than I can obviously deduce that the KS pot is going to run dry at some point, but conversely if there is good progress, I know that the project is in recoverable shape. I don't need FD to commit to publish a load of timelines for that, I just need to see updates.
It's a great idea, but it needs to be in PBF. All alpha are backers but not all backers are Alpha. I backed to Founder - what £150? - I don't have time to alpha test the game, but I certainly consider that I should be able to read what's going on with the testing and see how many bugs are being nailed in each alpha release.
Every time but of course, the term 'like' has to be tied to something measurable, and that is the crux of your - very valid - discourse. We'll only get milestone payments for closure of stage boundaries, all approved by the client. But, you're right in that games are subjective whereas we obviously fill our project with measurable functional and non-functional requirements, so there can be no fighting when it's time for the fat lady to sing and the client to cough the cash!
So I think this is a really important distinction you have made here. What does this really mean to us backers? Pyros may love the released ED and I may hate it, or vice-versa. Who is right? Well, neither and both of us. Can I ask for my backing money to be returned because I do not like the released ED? No, and I'll look like a total **** for even trying. But, when I bought X-Rebirth I *did* get a refund. Not because I did not like it (although I didn't, it was utter toilet), but because I could prove to Steam that it did not meet certain functional requirements, that really are base requirements of law in most countries; it wouldn't even run correctly.
And one thing is what is internally set as the project, the other is the publicly communicated dates. While we get the "when it is ready" mantra, I bet that internally things are quite more detailed, with set dates. You don't get to work to some of the top publishers by just making it up while going forward
Absolutely. So, for a corporate project there will be regular exec updates etc and the user community will see key milestones. But yes, there's a massive project plan and then individual team plans with tasks such as 'deploy VMs', 'deploy software' etc etc. These plans are actually always published unless there's a sensitivity\legal reason not to, because you never know who wants to look at them, but the main point of focus for a client will usually be key milestones.
True but sadly, fantastic products don't usually arrive from badly executed project. The example you cited - the history of which I was unaware of - is probably a rarity. Usually, a badly conceived and\or run project just gets worse and worse the longer it runs, and more and more is descoped from the end product in order to offset the extended cost of resource over time, which mean the product quality suffers immensely. The old quality triangle so beloved of project managers.
And I'll just remind everyone again, I wasn't specifically comparing games to enterprise projects, I was combatting the statement made by another poster that, *all software releases* are late. That's how this specific branch of the thread has come about, because I refute this 'all software releases' catch all and I dislike a culture where failure to deliver is seen as somehow acceptable. Remember, each time a project slips outside tolerance, it's ripe for being canned because it has to be revalidated as, "is it still worth doing this?". So everytime a PM lets something slip (perhaps he cannot help it, sure) he's putting all his team's jobs on the line as well as risking customer disatisfaction because the plug is pulled.
For example, ED could get pulled if it slips long enough, because that £2m KS pot won't last for infinite alpha test runs...
So, for me, ED can come out in 2017 for all I care, it's not like there is a dearth of good games in the world. But the comms needs to be better, I don't care about a timeline at all, but I want to know why it's slipped, and I'd certainly like to understand progress against this thing that has caused it to slip. Because if I don't see good progress than I can obviously deduce that the KS pot is going to run dry at some point, but conversely if there is good progress, I know that the project is in recoverable shape. I don't need FD to commit to publish a load of timelines for that, I just need to see updates.
It's a great idea, but it needs to be in PBF. All alpha are backers but not all backers are Alpha. I backed to Founder - what £150? - I don't have time to alpha test the game, but I certainly consider that I should be able to read what's going on with the testing and see how many bugs are being nailed in each alpha release.
Last edited:
Squicker
S
Rolled up into another post, for economy.
Last edited: