Following on from the recent announcement that the Alpha exclusivity period is two weeks rather than hopefully a few hours how do backers feel about this?
There were a couple of large threads after the last newsletter with many points regarding the exclusive access and 50% off insurance which were basically put to bed when Michael posted that the exclusivity period would only be a few hours if all went well.
This may or may not still be the case for subsequent beta build releases but the initial build will have a 2 week exclusivity period starting around the 16th of May (2 weeks before the 30th of May) LINK.
I can understand the desire to do a sanity check before releasing beta builds to beta testers but since the initial exclusivity period is a hard 2 weeks it flies in the face of the sanity check as if there are no issues with the build then beta tester should in theory be given access but they won't be and will have to wait the two weeks out.
My personal take on it is that I don't it's very fair to suddenly just when the Alpha period is coming to an end to withhold access to the Beta that beta backers pledged for to sell more Alpha packages. Some may argue that this isn't the case but the timing of the announcement along with the wording of the newsletter and the subsequent announcement that the exclusivity period is a hard 2 weeks rather than just a sanity check would IMO prove that it is indeed just a lure to snag more £'s.
I would be surprised if FD suddenly needed extra money due to the fact the game has been funding to the tune of 2.45 million pounds just via crowd funding, in addition to the funding they received from other sources.
Is this something you want to see in a company that you help fund a game for? Does your love for the older games and passion for the upcoming game mean that you don't really care what FD do as long as they deliver the goods?
It is not my intention to cause a ruckus here (so please let's have an adult debate) but just to point out something which I do not feel is on and to have my objection (and probably other people's) noted so that FD are aware that their backers do not appreciate what could be considered an underhand practice (changing goal posts, using the pledge tiers of other backers as an incentive to make more money). The game is being made by the grace of us backers after all.
There were a couple of large threads after the last newsletter with many points regarding the exclusive access and 50% off insurance which were basically put to bed when Michael posted that the exclusivity period would only be a few hours if all went well.
This may or may not still be the case for subsequent beta build releases but the initial build will have a 2 week exclusivity period starting around the 16th of May (2 weeks before the 30th of May) LINK.
I can understand the desire to do a sanity check before releasing beta builds to beta testers but since the initial exclusivity period is a hard 2 weeks it flies in the face of the sanity check as if there are no issues with the build then beta tester should in theory be given access but they won't be and will have to wait the two weeks out.
My personal take on it is that I don't it's very fair to suddenly just when the Alpha period is coming to an end to withhold access to the Beta that beta backers pledged for to sell more Alpha packages. Some may argue that this isn't the case but the timing of the announcement along with the wording of the newsletter and the subsequent announcement that the exclusivity period is a hard 2 weeks rather than just a sanity check would IMO prove that it is indeed just a lure to snag more £'s.
I would be surprised if FD suddenly needed extra money due to the fact the game has been funding to the tune of 2.45 million pounds just via crowd funding, in addition to the funding they received from other sources.
Is this something you want to see in a company that you help fund a game for? Does your love for the older games and passion for the upcoming game mean that you don't really care what FD do as long as they deliver the goods?
It is not my intention to cause a ruckus here (so please let's have an adult debate) but just to point out something which I do not feel is on and to have my objection (and probably other people's) noted so that FD are aware that their backers do not appreciate what could be considered an underhand practice (changing goal posts, using the pledge tiers of other backers as an incentive to make more money). The game is being made by the grace of us backers after all.
