The Path of the Game...

[Squicker]

It's amazing how Squicker manages to spin the alpha discount _we_kept_asking_for_ and eventually got as a negative thing... a scam even.

Well, I don't pay massive attention to this forum, fits and spurts, there's only so much brown-nosing of FD I can take each month before I have to vomit copiously! ;-)

No, in reality I seldom have enough free time to spend on this place, so I most likely missed any unified campaign to get alpha reduced in price. If that's what people wanted and they got it and they enjoyed the alpha process, then that's great for them and I hope they enjoy what they get when they game is released, because I don't dismiss that the EARLY alpha feedback will have helped to iron out flaws in the game. Should anyone have to pay to do the job of a tester? Would I pay 200 quid or even 10 quid to empty the bins at a hotel I just spent the night at?

As I stated very clearly in my post, that's my *personal* opinion and YMMV. If it has indeed varied, then that's great but I form my own opinions and just because the odd Internet random doesn't like them, they are not going to change. They'll get changed by evidence and all the evidence I see post KS, says cash grab.

FD had my respect by default at KS time, lost if through a variety of PR behaviours for this game, not all of which are to do with alpha (newletters that talk a lot and say nothing, poor backer engagement etc.) and it'll come back if the game is good. Certainly what I have seen so far (and I don't really pay as much attention as a lot of you, I am sure) the game gives me a good feeling and appears high quality, and ultimately that's what the gaming community will judge them by.

We backers are a miniscule drop in the ocean of potential game buyers so fingers crossed for FD they get the general release right.

 

[Pyros]

If that's what people wanted and they got it and they enjoyed the alpha process, then that's great for them and I hope they enjoy what they get when they game is released, because I don't dismiss that their feedback will have helped to iron out flaws in the game. Should anyone have to pay to do the job of a tester? Would I pay 200 quid or even 10 quid to empty the bins at a hotel I just spent the night at?

While the backers that bought the alpha (or superior) package have access to alpha builds, they are not alpha testing or doing any QA job. Testing software (QA) is quite different - no company would pay for the type of test alpha players are doing.

To the players, there is complete freedom - whenever you feel like go so whatever you want. While it has testing value (as bugs are found out and reported) naturally it is not the way QA operates (testing schedules and scripts, extensive reporting, retesting if fount bugs for confirmation...).

 

[Theaghan Black]

World of Tanks is squarely in the freemium model, and it's an awesome game. The transaction possibilities haven't bothered me once, and I think I've put in about a triple-A title's worth over the years.

Of course there are some free games in which C4C doesn't really affect the gameplay: WoT, MWO are notable examples. But without C4C some others are boring (War Thunder) or frustrating (Ghost Recon Phantom).

Anyway these games are based on "grinding": C4C accelerates the normal process and makes you directly of a superior Tier (except in GRP where the best buyable weapons make the difference and advancing by grinding a thing for sadomasochists).

In all these games matchmaking is fundamental as they are not sand boxes as ED will be. I think I've read of ED matching players in the same session when jumping in the same star system: I really hope it's not going to be so as this is a way to balance the game. Why should anyone bother to buy a better ship knowing that from that moment he will go against better players?

Normally you buy a better ship to have gain profit by that. So if the matchmaking is really working to balance the game then C4C is not a problem, but in this way the game experience will be a lot different from what I expected.

 

[Squicker]

Yes, I would agree, as you have put it like that (below). And I think then we get into the semantics of what the testing really is, something many of us - perhaps you also - did get into on another thread. And I think the upshot was that it's not really an alpha anyway because it has of course already been alpha'd internally before the public see it. Because true alphas are often very flaky things indeed and might not be appropriate for backers or other potential buyers, and even journalists, to see.

Even the alpha 1.1, crude as I am sure it is in comparison to Alpha 4, is in remarkably good shape for an alpha. It's more a demo than anything. Yeah, you can tell it's unfinished graphically and there are placeholders in there etc, but it's really a lot more robust and self-contained than even some demos have been from other devs.

So really that shows even more that my views on how FD have comported themselves are indeed only my views, because even the very definition of what the testing is\was, is open to a vast array of interpretation. And depending how each person defines that process in their own head, they'll assign a value to it. For me there was no value in being in alpha, not least of which because I would be a useless test case as I am highly inconsistent in my ability to grant time to play and fill in session feedback surveys etc.

Even Premium Beta, which I got as a side-effect of Founder pledging, I doubt I'll bother with that much due to time and also a desire to only see the finished product, to not take that 'unboxing' excitement away too much before release day.

Nonetheless, I am still left with a niggling doubt re. FD, "why are they so unconcerned about appearing to be so blatantly after money? Are they in trouble? Would that herald some corner cutting in the game if it were true?"

And I guess I cannot answer that question satisfactory until the game is actually released.

While the backers that bought the alpha (or superior) package have access to alpha builds, they are not alpha testing or doing any QA job. Testing software (QA) is quite different - no company would pay for the type of test alpha players are doing.

To the players, there is complete freedom - whenever you feel like go so whatever you want. While it has testing value (as bugs are found out and reported) naturally it is not the way QA operates (testing schedules and scripts, extensive reporting, retesting if fount bugs for confirmation...).

 

[Squicker]

There's no need to be so negative about it, alpha access isn't a right. So £200 is too rich for you, well same here, hardly a big deal. You're not actually paying to test the game, you're paying to support the game... the rest is just a bonus.

And they couldn't exactly turn around and offer alpha for cheaper after the kickstarter ended, that'd just alienate and possibly **** off the original backers.

Sorry, only just saw your post.

I am of course being fairly tongue in cheek with my choice of language so don't worry about my health, I find the matter amusing if anything (clearly someone who mentions Swiss Toni is not being overly serious!), however my point stands. But I don't think you understood my point, it's not that alpha is 'too rich', I am a Founder so I paid only 50 quid short of Alpha anyway, if I thought alpha was something of merit I'd have no qualms about spending the money on it and would have done so in the KS. Everything in life has a relative value and if that is present and correct I shall buy it if I desire it.

And I completely agree with you that FD should not have offered the alpha for cheaper post KS. In fact, a key point is that they ought not to have been offering it post-KS at all. That's when the cash grab started. In KS you are quite right, it's about pledging support for the game and I personally could not see anything of interest above Founder level to pledge to. But then suddenly it was all, "oh BTW, yeah that thing where we said KS is ending get in now. Well, it IS ending (as them's the rules) but here's our Paypal account if you still want to throw money at us". And from then on FD just made stuff up as they went along, in order to keep people on the alpha hook.

But of course, it really is a matter of personal perspective as Pyros says. But that does show it's not an alpha (if it were, it would be an objective test stage), it's pay to play (early), and I simply think FD have come across as very grabby in this aspect of their engagement.

Anyway, I doubt myself and the people who disagree with my view shall see eye to eye on it, because it's really a matter of a personal stance which is not apt to be changed by discussion with Internet randoms. Put simply, it doesn't mean I am being negative by seeing it differently to you. I could turn around and call you 'too negative' for perpetuating (what I see as) a negative model of developers scooping money from fanbois for unfinished code. I would not do that because I consider you should hold your own viewpoint which, just because it's different to mine, is not necessarily negative.

EDIT: To get it back on topic, I am merely concerned that what I see as aggressive selling of pay-to-play (alpha) will carry on in live release if given a model that permits that (C4C etc). After all, if it worked for FD in alpha, why change the approach for go-live?

 

[Orc]

World of Tanks is squarely in the freemium model, and it's an awesome game. The transaction possibilities haven't bothered me once, and I think I've put in about a triple-A title's worth over the years.

If you enjoy it, good for you! As other people have pointed out already, it is a matter of personal preference. My question is, would you have liked it more, if it were buy-to-play, or even sub-to-play, but without a cash shop? For me personally, the answer is almost invariably yes. Games that have a cash shop, but aren't designed for outright cash grabbing are few and far between.
While we don't know exactly how the cash shop will work in E: D, there are some disturbing signs like credits for cash or the very expensive demos.
I would very much prefer the finished E: D to come with an unambiguous price tag (even if priced as AAA+) but without the cash shop, than the other way around. I would actually pay them more for their game, if they were to come out with a clear price for a concrete product, because that would let me know exactly what it is I am getting (via previews, reviews, let's plays and whatnots) and how much the experience will cost. I don't think that price obfuscation and vague deliverables should be encouraged by consumers in any industry.

 

[Squicker]

Games that have a cash shop, but aren't designed for outright cash grabbing are few and far between.

Even games that start off with the best of intentions in this area seem to succumb to a slide into cash grabbing territory, with, "*****half-price credits\mounts\bright purple armour this weekend!!!!!*****" being rammed down your throat.

The one argument I can't seem to refute that is in favour of C4C is that people would do it anyway - buy from gold\credit farmers. Looking at all the other games I've played, this is invariably true. So they reason, why not let FD have control of the cashflow.

I guess there's a lot of logic for that. All the botting, exploiting and the other crap that comes with farming just goes away then, because FD simply undercut them and remove their market. The effort that FD would have spent on fixing exploit after exploit and ban-hammering bots etc. can be spent on content updates. So it's beneficial to all.

I can't really refute the logic of the above. But it becomes a problem when a developer who put C4C in place to eliminate gold-selling for sound reasons, then starts to put BIS gear (best in gimbal in our case) in the shop and so on, and finally architects the game so it's not completable without you visiting the cash shop. And that slope is a slippery one in my experience.

In an ideal world I would buy a game (that's my payment for the great game the designers have made) and pay a sub, which is my commitment to support them in their endeavours to maintain and update the content. I don't expect a sub to pay for fixes in a game that was released with bugs however, the elimination of 99% of the bugs was included in my box price payment (and in the case of FD, after taking 200 quid a pop from all the late alpha people I am sure their game will be squeaky clean upon release)! That model to me is a good one that I'd happily support for a quality game and quality support\maintenance.