Did we just get conned?
- Thread starter avow555
- Start date
What are you talking about? The store now allows for the upgrade to alpha, a good move in my book.
Although the total price of alpha access remains the same, it allows for people who pledged less to upgrade instead of having to buy a full alpha@£200 if they want access it now.
It was a pretty popular request also.
Now, AFAIK no one promised "Alpha access for cheap".
I too would like to upgrade my kickstarter pledge using the original levels, as getting the Alpha now just doesn't sound like a very attractive offer (even for Elite!) - however, calling this a "con" is indeed an inappropriate and rather rude way of describing this offer...
In the end, we've all been guaranteed to get what we paid for, and I don't see this changing. If anyone doesn't like this new offer, they are free to abstain.
In the end, we've all been guaranteed to get what we paid for, and I don't see this changing. If anyone doesn't like this new offer, they are free to abstain.
Still too expensive for the dubious privilege of testing an incomplete software you've already pre-ordered.
Nobody here will appreciate me making this comparison but you can get the Star Citizen; Persistent Universe (including first-person-shooter/walking avatar mechanics - which will cost extra for ED), Squadron 42 Single-player Campaign and Alpha/Beta access (for over a year before release) for just US$40.
Nobody here will appreciate me making this comparison but you can get the Star Citizen; Persistent Universe (including first-person-shooter/walking avatar mechanics - which will cost extra for ED), Squadron 42 Single-player Campaign and Alpha/Beta access (for over a year before release) for just US$40.
Well yes the alpha is expensive if you compare with other games ...
If you compare ED with SC, I can say that ED is in alpha phase and SC is not but I dislike to compare those games because I backed both
Comparing the cost of alpha/beta access with other developers such as SC is just not going to work. It all depends on what model a particular developer has chosen for development and testing.
Assumed and fictitious scenario:
I want to run a public alpha test, on a representative selection of hardware. I need to limit the total number of testers in order to be able to handle all the test results at this early stage.
This leaves me with a few options, a cap on the number of testers, by invitation only, etc. When I also need to raise money through Kickstarter the obvious answer is price it high.
Those willing to pay for early and potentially "buggy" access will then become my testers. One drawback could be that it limits my representative selection as my testers more than likely have better than average hardware.
This is just one scenario and this seems to be the model FD has chosen. SC has approached testing differently. They seem to want as many testers as possible at an early stage.
Assumed and fictitious scenario:
I want to run a public alpha test, on a representative selection of hardware. I need to limit the total number of testers in order to be able to handle all the test results at this early stage.
This leaves me with a few options, a cap on the number of testers, by invitation only, etc. When I also need to raise money through Kickstarter the obvious answer is price it high.
Those willing to pay for early and potentially "buggy" access will then become my testers. One drawback could be that it limits my representative selection as my testers more than likely have better than average hardware.
This is just one scenario and this seems to be the model FD has chosen. SC has approached testing differently. They seem to want as many testers as possible at an early stage.
I backed in Dec 2012 at the £50 tier so will have access to second beta. Upgrading to alpha now is tempting, but I still can't justify another £150 for this game, even for alpha and the access that entails.
Sorry Frontier. Knock the 1st round beta down to a £75 (I.e. a £25 upgrade) and we'll talk.
Sorry Frontier. Knock the 1st round beta down to a £75 (I.e. a £25 upgrade) and we'll talk.
Lestat
Banned
But you forget to point out you have to buy the ships. Which could cost you a arm and a leg.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
no one got conned, after all they are quite clear with what you get before you buy.
If there is any issue it is that when I originally backed, it looked obvious by using simple maths that alpha would get you around a month headstart over B1, which get a month or so over B2, which get a month or so over release/gamma, so it was easy to assign a subjective value to each of the tiers.
Now however alpha is being stretched, and presumably B1 and 2 will be as well, but with not even the faintest idea - could be a month, could be 6 months, there is no way to put a value on each tier.
Delays happen, which is fine, the thing here is, the alpha wasn't delayed and some one surely had an idea how much work was involved in going from algha to beta when coming up with a timeline?.
imo one "community spirit" way around this would have been to have given alpha 1.1 to the beta 1 backers at the end of the month, which would coincide with when the estimated beta 1 would have launched and at the same time the alpha guys get alpha 2. *But with the express warning that alpha 1.1 gets no support (then beta 2 get access at the beginning of March).
I dont see how anyone could complain with this as the alpha users would have gotten their 1 month exclusivity and keep getting their new content before everyone else, which was what was listed in the kickstarter.
But FD chose not to do this, which they are entitled to do.
My worry is that (and there is no way to prove this) that the beta module may be artificially delayed now to stop the crazy backlash of people who have stumped up the extra cash for alpha, after all, if beta 1 came in the middle of feb, i think there would be a lot of disgruntled new alpha folk. I suppose this *could* happen, as the alpha makes no promises of how long it will run for, however I doubt it.
If there is any issue it is that when I originally backed, it looked obvious by using simple maths that alpha would get you around a month headstart over B1, which get a month or so over B2, which get a month or so over release/gamma, so it was easy to assign a subjective value to each of the tiers.
Now however alpha is being stretched, and presumably B1 and 2 will be as well, but with not even the faintest idea - could be a month, could be 6 months, there is no way to put a value on each tier.
Delays happen, which is fine, the thing here is, the alpha wasn't delayed and some one surely had an idea how much work was involved in going from algha to beta when coming up with a timeline?.
imo one "community spirit" way around this would have been to have given alpha 1.1 to the beta 1 backers at the end of the month, which would coincide with when the estimated beta 1 would have launched and at the same time the alpha guys get alpha 2. *But with the express warning that alpha 1.1 gets no support (then beta 2 get access at the beginning of March).
I dont see how anyone could complain with this as the alpha users would have gotten their 1 month exclusivity and keep getting their new content before everyone else, which was what was listed in the kickstarter.
But FD chose not to do this, which they are entitled to do.
My worry is that (and there is no way to prove this) that the beta module may be artificially delayed now to stop the crazy backlash of people who have stumped up the extra cash for alpha, after all, if beta 1 came in the middle of feb, i think there would be a lot of disgruntled new alpha folk. I suppose this *could* happen, as the alpha makes no promises of how long it will run for, however I doubt it.
Last edited:
careful with your language, OP. Being sensationalist doesn't always work. You didn't get conned. Even if you find the deal not to your liking, the fact that you haven't parted with any cash over and above your original amount, means you were not conned. No one is forcing you to spend any money. You may well have been enticed, but you are by no means out of pocket. You exerted your right to ignore something you found unappealing, which was the right move.
Wow, it's too early for my tinfoil hat, wait a minute I'll fish it out ;-) You worry too much!
Wow, it's too early for my tinfoil hat, wait a minute I'll fish it out ;-) You worry too much!
Philip Coutts
Volunteer Moderator
Oh man, look you pay your money, you makes your choice. No-one has been "conned". It is up to the individual to decide what they want to pay and which level they want to be at. I can't see Frontier reducing the price of Alpha and Beta as frankly that would be a huge kick in the teeth to all those who backed during the kickstarter.
I would never fork over anything close to that amount of money to get access to a game that isn't even finished. I do like it when others fork over that money because it goes into developing a game I want at a later stage
I would never fork over anything close to that amount of money to get access to a game that isn't even finished. I do like it when others fork over that money because it goes into developing a game I want at a later stage
What a devilish and smart plan I must say
LOL indeed. Look at it this way, if it wasnt that the alpha looks so bloody good i would not care. I have an entire steam backlog of untouched games, but after seeing ED there is only 1 game i want to play.
In a way my worries are a compliment