Cool, thanks. I don't actually need your explanation. Also, I already acknowledged that Early Access and Beta aren't the same. Mostly because beta is a means to an end, it's part of a release cycle, and early access is specifically intended to give the developer free reign to do whatever they want, absolving them of any sort of accountability which might require them to stamp a game as released. As much as the idea is a sound one, and I support the idea of early access because I feel that community feedback is seriously underrated, the implementation is too messy and open-ended. The evidence is in the differentiation between games in the program.
For the record, I have played early access games, and I own a couple that are in early access right now, and I'm looking at buying another. Not sure why you're making those assumptions.
I have a hard time believing you.
Not only do I have thousands of hours in playing early access games but I also have very likely thousands of hours watching youtubes of other people playing early access games and not ONCE does anyone of any of those thousands of hours of youtube videos say they were testing or felt like a tester.
NOT ONCE
people play early access titles because a game in early access looks fun to play. They DONT buy the games with testing in mind, nor do they test, nor do they feel like they are testing, nor are they buying them with a hyper focus on the future state of the game. They buy them to play and have fun...full stop
and yes..wipes do happen but if its a choice between playing EQ2 so I dont loose my data or somethign like Space Engineers with the risk of loosing my data I can assure you for me and millions of others Space Engineers will win that contest hands down
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Cool, thanks. I don't actually need your explanation. Also, I already acknowledged that Early Access and Beta aren't the same. Mostly because beta is a means to an end, it's part of a release cycle, and early access is specifically intended to give the developer free reign to do whatever they want, absolving them of any sort of accountability which might require them to stamp a game as released. As much as the idea is a sound one, and I support the idea of early access because I feel that community feedback is seriously underrated, the implementation is too messy and open-ended. The evidence is in the differentiation between games in the program.
For the record, I have played early access games, and I own a couple that are in early access right now, and I'm looking at buying another. Not sure why you're making those assumptions.
I have a hard time believing you.
Not only do I have thousands of hours in playing early access games but I also have very likely thousands of hours watching youtubes of other people playing early access games and not ONCE does anyone of any of those thousands of hours of youtube videos say they were testing or felt like a tester.
NOT ONCE
people play early access titles because a game in early access looks fun to play. They DONT buy the games with testing in mind, nor do they test, nor do they feel like they are testing, nor are they buying them with a hyper focus on the future state of the game. They buy them to play and have fun...full stop
and yes..wipes do happen but if its a choice between playing EQ2 so I dont loose my data or somethign like Space Engineers with the risk of loosing my data I can assure you for me and millions of others Space Engineers will win that contest hands down
I never once said that people were testing, hence the million-monkeys reference. This is the reason that 1000 people actively participating in testing in the "bad old days" was more effective than paid alpha and beta programs today. People in beta and alpha programs today don't test either (wide-sweeping generalization).
You're exactly right. Early Access is exactly how you're describing it. It's a game in some state of release with undetermined quality. However, you can download and play it immediately with the understanding that there could be quality issues or the game may never be fully-released.
Again, I appreciate that you're having fun playing Space Engineers for hundreds of hours, but if there is an explicit date for a wipe, then I wouldn't play it myself. You don't need to feel sorry for people like me, though. I just happen to have better things to do with my time.
There are games like Ark and Rust and 7DTD which might continue to maintain their Early Access, but these are illustrations of problems with the current model and accountability. For THESE games, I would refuse to buy them specifically for the optics that they are using Early Access as a vessel to escape any accountability to their user base. That's a completely different issue, though.
Cool, thanks. I don't actually need your explanation. Also, I already acknowledged that Early Access and Beta aren't the same. Mostly because beta is a means to an end, it's part of a release cycle, and early access is specifically intended to give the developer free reign to do whatever they want, absolving them of any sort of accountability which might require them to stamp a game as released. As much as the idea is a sound one, and I support the idea of early access because I feel that community feedback is seriously underrated, the implementation is too messy and open-ended. The evidence is in the differentiation between games in the program.
For the record, I have played early access games, and I own a couple that are in early access right now, and I'm looking at buying another. Not sure why you're making those assumptions.
I have a hard time believing you.
Not only do I have thousands of hours in playing early access games but I also have very likely thousands of hours watching youtubes of other people playing early access games and not ONCE does anyone of any of those thousands of hours of youtube videos say they were testing or felt like a tester.
NOT ONCE
people play early access titles because a game in early access looks fun to play. They DONT buy the games with testing in mind, nor do they test, nor do they feel like they are testing, nor are they buying them with a hyper focus on the future state of the game. They buy them to play and have fun...full stop
and yes..wipes do happen but if its a choice between playing EQ2 so I dont loose my data or somethign like Space Engineers with the risk of loosing my data I can assure you for me and millions of others Space Engineers will win that contest hands down
I never once said that people were testing, hence the million-monkeys reference. This is the reason that 1000 people actively participating in testing in the "bad old days" was more effective than paid alpha and beta programs today. People in beta and alpha programs today don't test either (wide-sweeping generalization).
You're exactly right. Early Access is exactly how you're describing it. It's a game in some state of release with undetermined quality. However, you can download and play it immediately with the understanding that there could be quality issues or the game may never be fully-released.
Again, I appreciate that you're having fun playing Space Engineers for hundreds of hours, but if there is an explicit date for a wipe, then I wouldn't play it myself. You don't need to feel sorry for people like me, though. I just happen to have better things to do with my time.
There are games like Ark and Rust and 7DTD which might continue to maintain their Early Access, but these are illustrations of problems with the current model and accountability. For THESE games, I would refuse to buy them specifically for the optics that they are using Early Access as a vessel to escape any accountability to their user base. That's a completely different issue, though.
so are you saying you are a special snowflake in which you personally are sick of testing but everyone else does not test or that they do test they just dont say that they are....rolls eyes?
you state you are 'sick of testing' and yet I am telling you I have never heard an Early Access player EVER not ONCE say they feel like the are testing, sick of testing, want to be a tester, or is like testing.
now to be fair to the OP we (at my fault) got off tract so I need to take the higher ground here and punt on this discussion on this specific OP thread.
sorry
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Cool, thanks. I don't actually need your explanation. Also, I already acknowledged that Early Access and Beta aren't the same. Mostly because beta is a means to an end, it's part of a release cycle, and early access is specifically intended to give the developer free reign to do whatever they want, absolving them of any sort of accountability which might require them to stamp a game as released. As much as the idea is a sound one, and I support the idea of early access because I feel that community feedback is seriously underrated, the implementation is too messy and open-ended. The evidence is in the differentiation between games in the program.
For the record, I have played early access games, and I own a couple that are in early access right now, and I'm looking at buying another. Not sure why you're making those assumptions.
I have a hard time believing you.
Not only do I have thousands of hours in playing early access games but I also have very likely thousands of hours watching youtubes of other people playing early access games and not ONCE does anyone of any of those thousands of hours of youtube videos say they were testing or felt like a tester.
NOT ONCE
people play early access titles because a game in early access looks fun to play. They DONT buy the games with testing in mind, nor do they test, nor do they feel like they are testing, nor are they buying them with a hyper focus on the future state of the game. They buy them to play and have fun...full stop
and yes..wipes do happen but if its a choice between playing EQ2 so I dont loose my data or somethign like Space Engineers with the risk of loosing my data I can assure you for me and millions of others Space Engineers will win that contest hands down
I never once said that people were testing, hence the million-monkeys reference. This is the reason that 1000 people actively participating in testing in the "bad old days" was more effective than paid alpha and beta programs today. People in beta and alpha programs today don't test either (wide-sweeping generalization).
You're exactly right. Early Access is exactly how you're describing it. It's a game in some state of release with undetermined quality. However, you can download and play it immediately with the understanding that there could be quality issues or the game may never be fully-released.
Again, I appreciate that you're having fun playing Space Engineers for hundreds of hours, but if there is an explicit date for a wipe, then I wouldn't play it myself. You don't need to feel sorry for people like me, though. I just happen to have better things to do with my time.
There are games like Ark and Rust and 7DTD which might continue to maintain their Early Access, but these are illustrations of problems with the current model and accountability. For THESE games, I would refuse to buy them specifically for the optics that they are using Early Access as a vessel to escape any accountability to their user base. That's a completely different issue, though.
so are you saying you are a special snowflake in which you personally are sick of testing but everyone else does not test or that they do test they just dont say that they are....rolls eyes?
you state you are 'sick of testing' and yet I am telling you I have never heard an Early Access player EVER not ONCE say they feel like the are testing, sick of testing, want to be a tester, or is like testing.
now to be fair to the OP we (at my fault) got off tract so I need to take the higher ground here and punt on this discussion on this specific OP thread.
sorry
Nope! Wrong again! I never said that. Somehow I'm not surprised by your lack of attention to detail, though.
What I DID say was I had a problem with games that put their games into a perpetual state of testing, but that applies to Alpha and, more so, Beta. I think it's irresponsible of games like Ark, 7DTD, Rust, etc. to take advantage of a system that's intended to promote innovation and risk-taking. Furthermore, I think it's irresponsible for Steam to allow it to happen. How can a game be in "Early Access" and release an expansion? Or be in "Early Access" and cut a retail console version of your game? The problem is that the very games that could be your greatest ambassadors for Early Access are also the ones tarnishing it. Plus, it's not only affecting Early Access games, but crowdfunded games, too. Early Access, in it's current state, is inherently absolving the developer of any real accountability.
There could be ways to prevent this from happening, or to encourage a release (like discounting any prices by 40% until release), but it would ultimately mean Steam taking a financial hit as well, so that will never happen. Also, for the 1% of cases it helps solve, it will hurt another 80% of games which are ACTUALLY struggling to realize their vision.
Cool, thanks. I don't actually need your explanation. Also, I already acknowledged that Early Access and Beta aren't the same. Mostly because beta is a means to an end, it's part of a release cycle, and early access is specifically intended to give the developer free reign to do whatever they want, absolving them of any sort of accountability which might require them to stamp a game as released. As much as the idea is a sound one, and I support the idea of early access because I feel that community feedback is seriously underrated, the implementation is too messy and open-ended. The evidence is in the differentiation between games in the program.
For the record, I have played early access games, and I own a couple that are in early access right now, and I'm looking at buying another. Not sure why you're making those assumptions.
I have a hard time believing you.
Not only do I have thousands of hours in playing early access games but I also have very likely thousands of hours watching youtubes of other people playing early access games and not ONCE does anyone of any of those thousands of hours of youtube videos say they were testing or felt like a tester.
NOT ONCE
people play early access titles because a game in early access looks fun to play. They DONT buy the games with testing in mind, nor do they test, nor do they feel like they are testing, nor are they buying them with a hyper focus on the future state of the game. They buy them to play and have fun...full stop
and yes..wipes do happen but if its a choice between playing EQ2 so I dont loose my data or somethign like Space Engineers with the risk of loosing my data I can assure you for me and millions of others Space Engineers will win that contest hands down
I never once said that people were testing, hence the million-monkeys reference. This is the reason that 1000 people actively participating in testing in the "bad old days" was more effective than paid alpha and beta programs today. People in beta and alpha programs today don't test either (wide-sweeping generalization).
You're exactly right. Early Access is exactly how you're describing it. It's a game in some state of release with undetermined quality. However, you can download and play it immediately with the understanding that there could be quality issues or the game may never be fully-released.
Again, I appreciate that you're having fun playing Space Engineers for hundreds of hours, but if there is an explicit date for a wipe, then I wouldn't play it myself. You don't need to feel sorry for people like me, though. I just happen to have better things to do with my time.
There are games like Ark and Rust and 7DTD which might continue to maintain their Early Access, but these are illustrations of problems with the current model and accountability. For THESE games, I would refuse to buy them specifically for the optics that they are using Early Access as a vessel to escape any accountability to their user base. That's a completely different issue, though.
so are you saying you are a special snowflake in which you personally are sick of testing but everyone else does not test or that they do test they just dont say that they are....rolls eyes?
you state you are 'sick of testing' and yet I am telling you I have never heard an Early Access player EVER not ONCE say they feel like the are testing, sick of testing, want to be a tester, or is like testing.
now to be fair to the OP we (at my fault) got off tract so I need to take the higher ground here and punt on this discussion on this specific OP thread.
sorry
Nope! Wrong again! I never said that. Somehow I'm not surprised by your lack of attention to detail, though.
What I DID say was I had a problem with games that put their games into a perpetual state of testing, but that applies to Alpha and, more so, Beta. I think it's irresponsible of games like Ark, 7DTD, Rust, etc. to take advantage of a system that's intended to promote innovation and risk-taking. Furthermore, I think it's irresponsible for Steam to allow it to happen. How can a game be in "Early Access" and release an expansion? Or be in "Early Access" and cut a retail console version of your game? The problem is that the very games that could be your greatest ambassadors for Early Access are also the ones tarnishing it. Plus, it's not only affecting Early Access games, but crowdfunded games, too. Early Access, in it's current state, is inherently absolving the developer of any real accountability.
There could be ways to prevent this from happening, or to encourage a release (like discounting any prices by 40% until release), but it would ultimately mean Steam taking a financial hit as well, so that will never happen. Also, for the 1% of cases it helps solve, it will hurt another 80% of games which are ACTUALLY struggling to realize their vision.
great so you responded to me having responded to someone else., that just makes life wonderful.
Edited correction on my part:
you ask me if players who put in a hunderns hours are concerned about wipes. My implication (which is also factual) is:
ME: someone who has played hunderns of hours in early access and has had content wiped
YOU: I assume have not.
so your in effect your asking if how to I feel about it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Cool, thanks. I don't actually need your explanation. Also, I already acknowledged that Early Access and Beta aren't the same. Mostly because beta is a means to an end, it's part of a release cycle, and early access is specifically intended to give the developer free reign to do whatever they want, absolving them of any sort of accountability which might require them to stamp a game as released. As much as the idea is a sound one, and I support the idea of early access because I feel that community feedback is seriously underrated, the implementation is too messy and open-ended. The evidence is in the differentiation between games in the program.
For the record, I have played early access games, and I own a couple that are in early access right now, and I'm looking at buying another. Not sure why you're making those assumptions.
I have a hard time believing you.
Not only do I have thousands of hours in playing early access games but I also have very likely thousands of hours watching youtubes of other people playing early access games and not ONCE does anyone of any of those thousands of hours of youtube videos say they were testing or felt like a tester.
NOT ONCE
people play early access titles because a game in early access looks fun to play. They DONT buy the games with testing in mind, nor do they test, nor do they feel like they are testing, nor are they buying them with a hyper focus on the future state of the game. They buy them to play and have fun...full stop
and yes..wipes do happen but if its a choice between playing EQ2 so I dont loose my data or somethign like Space Engineers with the risk of loosing my data I can assure you for me and millions of others Space Engineers will win that contest hands down
I never once said that people were testing, hence the million-monkeys reference. This is the reason that 1000 people actively participating in testing in the "bad old days" was more effective than paid alpha and beta programs today. People in beta and alpha programs today don't test either (wide-sweeping generalization).
You're exactly right. Early Access is exactly how you're describing it. It's a game in some state of release with undetermined quality. However, you can download and play it immediately with the understanding that there could be quality issues or the game may never be fully-released.
Again, I appreciate that you're having fun playing Space Engineers for hundreds of hours, but if there is an explicit date for a wipe, then I wouldn't play it myself. You don't need to feel sorry for people like me, though. I just happen to have better things to do with my time.
There are games like Ark and Rust and 7DTD which might continue to maintain their Early Access, but these are illustrations of problems with the current model and accountability. For THESE games, I would refuse to buy them specifically for the optics that they are using Early Access as a vessel to escape any accountability to their user base. That's a completely different issue, though.
so are you saying you are a special snowflake in which you personally are sick of testing but everyone else does not test or that they do test they just dont say that they are....rolls eyes?
you state you are 'sick of testing' and yet I am telling you I have never heard an Early Access player EVER not ONCE say they feel like the are testing, sick of testing, want to be a tester, or is like testing.
now to be fair to the OP we (at my fault) got off tract so I need to take the higher ground here and punt on this discussion on this specific OP thread.
sorry
Nope! Wrong again! I never said that. Somehow I'm not surprised by your lack of attention to detail, though.
What I DID say was I had a problem with games that put their games into a perpetual state of testing, but that applies to Alpha and, more so, Beta. I think it's irresponsible of games like Ark, 7DTD, Rust, etc. to take advantage of a system that's intended to promote innovation and risk-taking. Furthermore, I think it's irresponsible for Steam to allow it to happen. How can a game be in "Early Access" and release an expansion? Or be in "Early Access" and cut a retail console version of your game? The problem is that the very games that could be your greatest ambassadors for Early Access are also the ones tarnishing it. Plus, it's not only affecting Early Access games, but crowdfunded games, too. Early Access, in it's current state, is inherently absolving the developer of any real accountability.
There could be ways to prevent this from happening, or to encourage a release (like discounting any prices by 40% until release), but it would ultimately mean Steam taking a financial hit as well, so that will never happen. Also, for the 1% of cases it helps solve, it will hurt another 80% of games which are ACTUALLY struggling to realize their vision.
great so you responded to me having responded to someone else., that just makes life wonderful.
Edited correction on my part:
you ask me if players who put in a hunderns hours are concerned about wipes. My implication (which is also factual) is:
ME: someone who has played hunderns of hours in early access and has had content wiped
YOU: I assume have not.
so your in effect your asking if how to I feel about it.
Apology accepted!
Yeah, I have had my progress wiped a multitude of times, sometimes multiple times on multiple games. My point was simply that you don't really need to feel sorry for people who have had different experiences than you. Actually, telling someone that you feel sorry for them for not having played hundreds, or thousands (in your case), of hours of Early Access games might paint a different picture of you than what you think it does.
Nope! Wrong again! I never said that. Somehow I'm not surprised by your lack of attention to detail, though.
What I DID say was I had a problem with games that put their games into a perpetual state of testing, but that applies to Alpha and, more so, Beta. I think it's irresponsible of games like Ark, 7DTD, Rust, etc. to take advantage of a system that's intended to promote innovation and risk-taking. Furthermore, I think it's irresponsible for Steam to allow it to happen. How can a game be in "Early Access" and release an expansion? Or be in "Early Access" and cut a retail console version of your game? The problem is that the very games that could be your greatest ambassadors for Early Access are also the ones tarnishing it. Plus, it's not only affecting Early Access games, but crowdfunded games, too. Early Access, in it's current state, is inherently absolving the developer of any real accountability.
There could be ways to prevent this from happening, or to encourage a release (like discounting any prices by 40% until release), but it would ultimately mean Steam taking a financial hit as well, so that will never happen. Also, for the 1% of cases it helps solve, it will hurt another 80% of games which are ACTUALLY struggling to realize their vision.
great so you responded to me having responded to someone else., that just makes life wonderful.
Edited correction on my part:
you ask me if players who put in a hunderns hours are concerned about wipes. My implication (which is also factual) is:
ME: someone who has played hunderns of hours in early access and has had content wiped
YOU: I assume have not.
so your in effect your asking if how to I feel about it.
Apology accepted!
Yeah, I have had my progress wiped a multitude of times, sometimes multiple times on multiple games. My point was simply that you don't really need to feel sorry for people who have had different experiences than you. Actually, telling someone that you feel sorry for them for not having played hundreds, or thousands (in your case), of hours of Early Access games might paint a different picture of you than what you think it does.
Yes I do apologize for getting people mixed up and there was nothing you posted earlier that should have led to my confusion other than me not paying attention. Just so you know I am not trying to weasel out of that.
Although I do understand that people like different games it is of my personal opinion that the discrepancy of value in all areas of the game between something like Ark and EQ2 is so vast and so extensive across all areas of variable game play, that when someone says they would rather not play something like Ark and instead play something like EQ2 because of server wipes I very frankly find it very hard for me to believe that they have actual experience with both games.
That is how wide of a difference I personally see the two areas of the gaming industry, not a 1 out of 10 kinda difference, not a margin of difference, not a what kind of games people prefer difference but more of a horsecart vs as airplane as a stated objective only to move an item from one location to another is. its beyond subjective.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Yeah, I have had my progress wiped a multitude of times, sometimes multiple times on multiple games. My point was simply that you don't really need to feel sorry for people who have had different experiences than you. Actually, telling someone that you feel sorry for them for not having played hundreds, or thousands (in your case), of hours of Early Access games might paint a different picture of you than what you think it does.
Yes I do apologize for getting people mixed up and there was nothing you posted earlier that should have led to my confusion other than me not paying attention. Just so you know I am not trying to weasel out of that.
Although I do understand that people like different games it is of my personal opinion that the discrepancy of value in all areas of the game between something like Ark and EQ2 is so vast and so extensive across all areas of variable game play, that when someone says they would rather not play something like Ark and instead play something like EQ2 because of server wipes I very frankly find it very hard for me to believe that they have actual experience with both games.
That is how wide of a difference I personally see the two areas of the gaming industry, not a 1 out of 10 kinda difference, not a margin of difference, not a what kind of games people prefer difference but more of a horsecart vs as airplane as a stated objective only to move an item from one location to another is. its beyond subjective.
I can agree with you on Ark. Actually the game I'm looking at right now is PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds. A couple buddies are playing it, and it seems fun. It's not an MMORPG, though. Legends of Aria is, and it's likely going to be more time intensive and progress is going to be something that is important, or at least more important than something like Ark or Battlegrounds.
BTW, I DO have Alpha access to Legends of Aria, too, and I might drop in to check it out on occasion, but it's only in the interest of seeing what the progress is like and may not be more than a few hours. Similar idea with Wolcen, which I have. I did the same with Grim Dawn, I bought it early, played through Act 1 and left it until release. Same goes for Marvel Heroes Omega, I was in CBT and played a couple chapters until OBT (where there are no more wipes) and I'm now 3 times further than I was in CBT and still playing. Like I said, I'm not saying you're wrong, but some players DO want a more complete experience. For me, personally, that means relatively certainty of no more server wipes and, also, a more complete story.
Yeah, I have had my progress wiped a multitude of times, sometimes multiple times on multiple games. My point was simply that you don't really need to feel sorry for people who have had different experiences than you. Actually, telling someone that you feel sorry for them for not having played hundreds, or thousands (in your case), of hours of Early Access games might paint a different picture of you than what you think it does.
Yes I do apologize for getting people mixed up and there was nothing you posted earlier that should have led to my confusion other than me not paying attention. Just so you know I am not trying to weasel out of that.
Although I do understand that people like different games it is of my personal opinion that the discrepancy of value in all areas of the game between something like Ark and EQ2 is so vast and so extensive across all areas of variable game play, that when someone says they would rather not play something like Ark and instead play something like EQ2 because of server wipes I very frankly find it very hard for me to believe that they have actual experience with both games.
That is how wide of a difference I personally see the two areas of the gaming industry, not a 1 out of 10 kinda difference, not a margin of difference, not a what kind of games people prefer difference but more of a horsecart vs as airplane as a stated objective only to move an item from one location to another is. its beyond subjective.
I can agree with you on Ark. Actually the game I'm looking at right now is PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds. A couple buddies are playing it, and it seems fun. It's not an MMORPG, though. Legends of Aria is, and it's likely going to be more time intensive and progress is going to be something that is important, or at least more important than something like Ark or Battlegrounds.
BTW, I DO have Alpha access to Legends of Aria, too, and I might drop in to check it out on occasion, but it's only in the interest of seeing what the progress is like and may not be more than a few hours. Similar idea with Wolcen, which I have. I did the same with Grim Dawn, I bought it early, played through Act 1 and left it until release. Same goes for Marvel Heroes Omega, I was in CBT and played a couple chapters until OBT (where there are no more wipes) and I'm now 3 times further than I was in CBT and still playing. Like I said, I'm not saying you're wrong, but some players DO want a more complete experience. For me, personally, that means relatively certainty of no more server wipes and, also, a more complete story.
fair enough. I do think loosing progression is a factor but I dont think in the large average that its a deal breaker.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I'm sick of "testing" games, I want to PLAY games, not test them.
It's alpha, you can't complain about the bugs !
It's Early Access, you can't complain about the lack of content !
Pffft !
I very honestly feel sorry for folks with your point of view.
They are really missing out on the best 'revolution' in gaming history right now. Lots of great games
Are they going to do a server wipe?
Did you ever think that some people might not have 100 hours to put into a game only to have that progress disappear?
The problem is not with the people waiting for the game, but the people putting games into a perpetual state of testing. My assumption is that if something is in Early Access, it will be wiped at some point. That's not cool with me.
Are you against people testing it so that it comes ready and unbroken into your hands, at day of release? I don't get your viewpoint. You're fine to prefer not testing unfinished products - but are you against people making sure that the finished product is the best possible it could be?
What mate...
Nope! Not at all! I'm a huge supporter of early access and crowdfunding. I've tested numerous games. I'm even happier that there is a very enthusiastic crowd who is more than willing to invest hundreds of hours into testing a game. I'm just at a point in my life where time carries a high value, since it's at a premium. My kids play plenty of early access, but they've also played hundreds of hours of Pay Day, so they obviously have time to burn
anyone who thinking playing Early Access games is most 'testing' has no experience at all in early access nor has a grasp of testing.
its not remotely like that and I should know because I am the only person on this forum who appears to actually play early access titles and in large amount of time
Well it is MMORPG game forum so around these parts early access usually means alpha or beta and you often are testing
Only been recently (in "gamer" years) they started taking a page from EAAC games and started charging us for feature incomplete titles.
You certainly aren't the only person playing EACC games which you well know, but you do have a flair for the dramatic.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I'm sick of "testing" games, I want to PLAY games, not test them.
It's alpha, you can't complain about the bugs !
It's Early Access, you can't complain about the lack of content !
Pffft !
I very honestly feel sorry for folks with your point of view.
They are really missing out on the best 'revolution' in gaming history right now. Lots of great games
Are they going to do a server wipe?
Did you ever think that some people might not have 100 hours to put into a game only to have that progress disappear?
The problem is not with the people waiting for the game, but the people putting games into a perpetual state of testing. My assumption is that if something is in Early Access, it will be wiped at some point. That's not cool with me.
Are you against people testing it so that it comes ready and unbroken into your hands, at day of release? I don't get your viewpoint. You're fine to prefer not testing unfinished products - but are you against people making sure that the finished product is the best possible it could be?
What mate...
Nope! Not at all! I'm a huge supporter of early access and crowdfunding. I've tested numerous games. I'm even happier that there is a very enthusiastic crowd who is more than willing to invest hundreds of hours into testing a game. I'm just at a point in my life where time carries a high value, since it's at a premium. My kids play plenty of early access, but they've also played hundreds of hours of Pay Day, so they obviously have time to burn
anyone who thinking playing Early Access games is most 'testing' has no experience at all in early access nor has a grasp of testing.
its not remotely like that and I should know because I am the only person on this forum who appears to actually play early access titles and in large amount of time
Well it is MMORPG game forum so around these parts early access usually means alpha or beta and you often are testing
Only been recently (in "gamer" years) they started taking a page from EAAC games and started charging us for feature incomplete titles.
You certainly aren't the only person playing EACC games which you well know, but you do have a flair for the dramatic.
I have no idea what EACC is
I do know that many develolpers who do not use Steam Early Access like to use the phrase Early Access because they know how popular Steam Early Access is so they call their deployments Early Access
But...we would be better served to not be lazy and make the distinction when speaking. Which I will do moving forward and hopefully others will as well
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I'm sick of "testing" games, I want to PLAY games, not test them.
It's alpha, you can't complain about the bugs !
It's Early Access, you can't complain about the lack of content !
Pffft !
I very honestly feel sorry for folks with your point of view.
They are really missing out on the best 'revolution' in gaming history right now. Lots of great games
Are they going to do a server wipe?
Did you ever think that some people might not have 100 hours to put into a game only to have that progress disappear?
The problem is not with the people waiting for the game, but the people putting games into a perpetual state of testing. My assumption is that if something is in Early Access, it will be wiped at some point. That's not cool with me.
Are you against people testing it so that it comes ready and unbroken into your hands, at day of release? I don't get your viewpoint. You're fine to prefer not testing unfinished products - but are you against people making sure that the finished product is the best possible it could be?
What mate...
Nope! Not at all! I'm a huge supporter of early access and crowdfunding. I've tested numerous games. I'm even happier that there is a very enthusiastic crowd who is more than willing to invest hundreds of hours into testing a game. I'm just at a point in my life where time carries a high value, since it's at a premium. My kids play plenty of early access, but they've also played hundreds of hours of Pay Day, so they obviously have time to burn
anyone who thinking playing Early Access games is most 'testing' has no experience at all in early access nor has a grasp of testing.
its not remotely like that and I should know because I am the only person on this forum who appears to actually play early access titles and in large amount of time
Well it is MMORPG game forum so around these parts early access usually means alpha or beta and you often are testing
Only been recently (in "gamer" years) they started taking a page from EAAC games and started charging us for feature incomplete titles.
You certainly aren't the only person playing EACC games which you well know, but you do have a flair for the dramatic.
I have no idea what EACC is
I do know that many develolpers who do not use Steam Early Access like to use the phrase Early Access because they know how popular Steam Early Access is so they call their deployments Early Access
But...we would be better served to not be lazy and make the distinction when speaking. Which I will do moving forward and hopefully others will as well
Ahh, well you were complaining in another thread that EA was the worst acronym we could use for early access, so I thought I'd toss out EACC to see if it sticks.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I'm sick of "testing" games, I want to PLAY games, not test them.
It's alpha, you can't complain about the bugs !
It's Early Access, you can't complain about the lack of content !
Pffft !
I very honestly feel sorry for folks with your point of view.
They are really missing out on the best 'revolution' in gaming history right now. Lots of great games
Are they going to do a server wipe?
Did you ever think that some people might not have 100 hours to put into a game only to have that progress disappear?
The problem is not with the people waiting for the game, but the people putting games into a perpetual state of testing. My assumption is that if something is in Early Access, it will be wiped at some point. That's not cool with me.
Are you against people testing it so that it comes ready and unbroken into your hands, at day of release? I don't get your viewpoint. You're fine to prefer not testing unfinished products - but are you against people making sure that the finished product is the best possible it could be?
What mate...
Nope! Not at all! I'm a huge supporter of early access and crowdfunding. I've tested numerous games. I'm even happier that there is a very enthusiastic crowd who is more than willing to invest hundreds of hours into testing a game. I'm just at a point in my life where time carries a high value, since it's at a premium. My kids play plenty of early access, but they've also played hundreds of hours of Pay Day, so they obviously have time to burn
anyone who thinking playing Early Access games is most 'testing' has no experience at all in early access nor has a grasp of testing.
its not remotely like that and I should know because I am the only person on this forum who appears to actually play early access titles and in large amount of time
Well it is MMORPG game forum so around these parts early access usually means alpha or beta and you often are testing
Only been recently (in "gamer" years) they started taking a page from EAAC games and started charging us for feature incomplete titles.
You certainly aren't the only person playing EACC games which you well know, but you do have a flair for the dramatic.
I have no idea what EACC is
I do know that many develolpers who do not use Steam Early Access like to use the phrase Early Access because they know how popular Steam Early Access is so they call their deployments Early Access
But...we would be better served to not be lazy and make the distinction when speaking. Which I will do moving forward and hopefully others will as well
Ahh, well you were complaining in another thread that EA was the worst acronym we could use for early access, so I thought I'd toss out EACC to see if it sticks.
what the fuck does the CC stand for?
how about EAG - early access games
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
It is a really bad idea.Player run servers will limit the servers and limits the games overall MMO feel.A normal game with say 15 zones is tough to populate now a days for lack of players.So this game could have hundreds of modded servers meaning many could be completely empty.
So it sounds good on paper but will not work to realize a Triple A mmorpg and a busy one at that.Instead they are doing like most claim,to be a MMO because the login screen says so. Also relying on players for the game world also will not work because at the very best you end up like that NW online where every quest looks the same using the same assets and became extremely boring after 1-2 weeks.
Way too many wannabe developers trying to be a part of the MMO craze without the budget nor the manpower to create assets to fill a world and create scripted content and tons of AI to bring a world to life.As shown in one fo their marketing videos,a few hubs with a few dotted assets then ends with pvp,which is typical of games with no content,let's just pvp 24/7.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I'm sick of "testing" games, I want to PLAY games, not test them.
It's alpha, you can't complain about the bugs !
It's Early Access, you can't complain about the lack of content !
Pffft !
I very honestly feel sorry for folks with your point of view.
They are really missing out on the best 'revolution' in gaming history right now. Lots of great games
Are they going to do a server wipe?
Did you ever think that some people might not have 100 hours to put into a game only to have that progress disappear?
The problem is not with the people waiting for the game, but the people putting games into a perpetual state of testing. My assumption is that if something is in Early Access, it will be wiped at some point. That's not cool with me.
Are you against people testing it so that it comes ready and unbroken into your hands, at day of release? I don't get your viewpoint. You're fine to prefer not testing unfinished products - but are you against people making sure that the finished product is the best possible it could be?
What mate...
Nope! Not at all! I'm a huge supporter of early access and crowdfunding. I've tested numerous games. I'm even happier that there is a very enthusiastic crowd who is more than willing to invest hundreds of hours into testing a game. I'm just at a point in my life where time carries a high value, since it's at a premium. My kids play plenty of early access, but they've also played hundreds of hours of Pay Day, so they obviously have time to burn
anyone who thinking playing Early Access games is most 'testing' has no experience at all in early access nor has a grasp of testing.
its not remotely like that and I should know because I am the only person on this forum who appears to actually play early access titles and in large amount of time
Well it is MMORPG game forum so around these parts early access usually means alpha or beta and you often are testing
Only been recently (in "gamer" years) they started taking a page from EAAC games and started charging us for feature incomplete titles.
You certainly aren't the only person playing EACC games which you well know, but you do have a flair for the dramatic.
I have no idea what EACC is
I do know that many develolpers who do not use Steam Early Access like to use the phrase Early Access because they know how popular Steam Early Access is so they call their deployments Early Access
But...we would be better served to not be lazy and make the distinction when speaking. Which I will do moving forward and hopefully others will as well
Ahh, well you were complaining in another thread that EA was the worst acronym we could use for early access, so I thought I'd toss out EACC to see if it sticks.
what the fuck does the CC stand for?
how about EAG - early access games
Not worth trying to explain.
Since you enjoy making this distinction it should really be SEA.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I pledged and have played off and on since February 2016. I've had a lot of fun with this game recently. The updates have improved the player experience a lot. I really like being able to switch gear via an item bar. Non-instanced housing is cool. Wandering around exploring is fun. (Lag is still an issue.) The map has been getting huge. The developer streams are fun to watch, I really like how the developers also play the game with non-God characters, so they can experience it themselves.
However, after classes were introduced (regardless of what they are called, they are basically classes) I lost much interest in playing. Want to play a warrior with a sword and shield and also train hiding (like you could in Shards)? - nope, hiding is a rogue class skill. (Unless I'm misunderstanding how this works.) Leveling skills is still use based, which I like - but limiting what skills you can use via classes really limits options for how you can play. Yes, it is easier for developers to balance skills with classes limiting the options. Some people have also said "why have a hundred skills when you only use 3?" Why? Because, then I get to choose how to play and what I want to level. If I want to be limited by classes, there are 100s of other games that do that already. Just my opinion. In the recent updates, instead of a skill bar where you pick what you want to use, there are now 2 skill buttons that are tied to what you have equipped in your hands. Once you pick a class, you get 3 more buttons.
I may still play this game after launch, but am less excited about it than I was. Who knows, maybe classes will grow on me?
Parrying, Hiding, Stealth and all core skills associated with your characters effectiveness are and always will be part of our skills system. Hiding and Stealth are not yet in game but will be added in our content patch next week.
Prestige classes allow us to give characters a greater selection of meta abilities ontop of their skill selections at the cost of skill points. Seperating this from the skill system gives much greater flexibility in combat than bringing the balance of individual skills into question. Giving individual skills a wide range of unique abilities can very easily create a class dynamic inside of a skill orientated game and this is something we wish to avoid.
Prestige classes are also designed specificallt to not become compulsory; adopting a prestige class comes at the cost of building tailor made characters (such as a parry warrior stealther). Legends of Aria is a skill based game and rest assured we will keep it this way!
It is a really bad idea.Player run servers will limit the servers and limits the games overall MMO feel.A normal game with say 15 zones is tough to populate now a days for lack of players.So this game could have hundreds of modded servers meaning many could be completely empty.
So it sounds good on paper but will not work to realize a Triple A mmorpg and a busy one at that.Instead they are doing like most claim,to be a MMO because the login screen says so. Also relying on players for the game world also will not work because at the very best you end up like that NW online where every quest looks the same using the same assets and became extremely boring after 1-2 weeks.
Way too many wannabe developers trying to be a part of the MMO craze without the budget nor the manpower to create assets to fill a world and create scripted content and tons of AI to bring a world to life.As shown in one fo their marketing videos,a few hubs with a few dotted assets then ends with pvp,which is typical of games with no content,let's just pvp 24/7.
They are building a large official server map right now.
It is a really bad idea.Player run servers will limit the servers and limits the games overall MMO feel.A normal game with say 15 zones is tough to populate now a days for lack of players.So this game could have hundreds of modded servers meaning many could be completely empty.
So it sounds good on paper but will not work to realize a Triple A mmorpg and a busy one at that.Instead they are doing like most claim,to be a MMO because the login screen says so. Also relying on players for the game world also will not work because at the very best you end up like that NW online where every quest looks the same using the same assets and became extremely boring after 1-2 weeks.
Way too many wannabe developers trying to be a part of the MMO craze without the budget nor the manpower to create assets to fill a world and create scripted content and tons of AI to bring a world to life.As shown in one fo their marketing videos,a few hubs with a few dotted assets then ends with pvp,which is typical of games with no content,let's just pvp 24/7.
They are building a large official server map right now.
Won't help, player owned servers are just a joke on anyone attempting to play the game. Any time a developer starts talking about player owned servers that just tells us that they either don't have the financial backing to do their own servers or that they are completely clueless how bad that is.
It is a really bad idea.Player run servers will limit the servers and limits the games overall MMO feel.A normal game with say 15 zones is tough to populate now a days for lack of players.So this game could have hundreds of modded servers meaning many could be completely empty.
So it sounds good on paper but will not work to realize a Triple A mmorpg and a busy one at that.Instead they are doing like most claim,to be a MMO because the login screen says so. Also relying on players for the game world also will not work because at the very best you end up like that NW online where every quest looks the same using the same assets and became extremely boring after 1-2 weeks.
Way too many wannabe developers trying to be a part of the MMO craze without the budget nor the manpower to create assets to fill a world and create scripted content and tons of AI to bring a world to life.As shown in one fo their marketing videos,a few hubs with a few dotted assets then ends with pvp,which is typical of games with no content,let's just pvp 24/7.
They are building a large official server map right now.
Won't help, player owned servers are just a joke on anyone attempting to play the game. Any time a developer starts talking about player owned servers that just tells us that they either don't have the financial backing to do their own servers or that they are completely clueless how bad that is.
Is it better when servers are emulated then?
There are a few hundred emulated UO servers. Too bad it is hard to change the maps or graphics of it, else it would be more successful.
Problem seems to be that emulating such servers seems to be illegal
So if someone offers to give sort of open code and give people a legal way to open shards, then it is bad?
Shards Online was, for the lack of a better word, "Ok" only. It wasn't ANYWHERE near what Ultima Online was or even is right now. Spiritual successor? Hardly at that, so don't buy into the hype outside of the fact the game just drops you into the world and you can do as you wish. True Sandbox? Yeah, an empty one with no content, janky animations, and unstable servers. Yeah yeah, it's Alpha, but again...servers were least stable pre-Legends launch.
As far as "Legends of Aria" is concerned...yeah, sorry... been playing it and it's honestly a HUGE step backwards from Shards Online, and it's not just the name change that sucks too. The only descent thing is probably the streamlined UI, but even then, they removed almost all the combat abilities associated with weapons and skills.
They have archery now..but yay, only ONE bow, long bow. Arrows are ridiculously tedious to craft, since you literally craft 1 freaking arrow with one whole plank of wood. That and 4 freaking arrows weigh 2 stones, the same weight as a rapier, and a long bow weights 16 stones. You'll need around 200-250 arrows to hunt properly, and that'll weight you down 100-125 stones of your like...280-290 carry capacity? This is before you throw in your food, bandages, potions, and the coins you'll find. Oh yes, coin bug is still around, since forever, so you'll carry 3000 copper instead of 30 silver and since coin weight is calculated by amount of actual coins, regardless if its copper, silver or gold, you'll be super weighed down.
Combat was NEVER a selling point for Shards Online, it was very slow for me, melee combat in particular. Unless you went daggers/fencing or a mage. Macing, swords, and especially archery is a snooze fest. Did I mention that npc mob archers can run and shoot at you? And yes, you can't do that..lol.
A tamer? Ok, but have fun running around the map to find ONE freaking brown bear to tame for your .1 skill gain. Now to spend another 10 minutes running around a new 25x larger map, that's entirely devoid of much of any mobs or critters, to try to get your taming up. Spawn hubs and camps like the "Goblin Mines"? Want to go in to farm? Ok, one player can camp the entire camp, it's that small of an area and that few mobs spawn. Mobs outside of said camps? Maybe an animal , which drops no coin, or an occasional roaming ogre near the Shrine camp, but nothing else.
This sounds like a rant no? Probably because this game was at least "somewhat" fun during Shards Online, but still lacked a lot of content, abilities, skills, and polish...but now with "Legends of Aria" the game feels even more archaic, slow, and it literally dumbfounds me why they made all these shitty changes to the game. I for one will just stop logging on until they have a new patch or something because yeah, the games a boring pile of wannabe sandbox-UO game with not a bit of fun UO offered.
The word "sandbox" has been overblown in this industry.....Its one of those catchwords that companies like to throw around because they think it will draw interest...This is one area where the industry gets quite frustrating because these companies jsut use these words and phrases for nothing else but to make money.
I'm sick of "testing" games, I want to PLAY games, not test them.
It's alpha, you can't complain about the bugs !
It's Early Access, you can't complain about the lack of content !
Pffft !
I very honestly feel sorry for folks with your point of view.
They are really missing out on the best 'revolution' in gaming history right now. Lots of great games
Are they going to do a server wipe?
Did you ever think that some people might not have 100 hours to put into a game only to have that progress disappear?
The problem is not with the people waiting for the game, but the people putting games into a perpetual state of testing. My assumption is that if something is in Early Access, it will be wiped at some point. That's not cool with me.
Are you against people testing it so that it comes ready and unbroken into your hands, at day of release? I don't get your viewpoint. You're fine to prefer not testing unfinished products - but are you against people making sure that the finished product is the best possible it could be?
What mate...
Nope! Not at all! I'm a huge supporter of early access and crowdfunding. I've tested numerous games. I'm even happier that there is a very enthusiastic crowd who is more than willing to invest hundreds of hours into testing a game. I'm just at a point in my life where time carries a high value, since it's at a premium. My kids play plenty of early access, but they've also played hundreds of hours of Pay Day, so they obviously have time to burn
anyone who thinking playing Early Access games is most 'testing' has no experience at all in early access nor has a grasp of testing.
its not remotely like that and I should know because I am the only person on this forum who appears to actually play early access titles and in large amount of time
Well it is MMORPG game forum so around these parts early access usually means alpha or beta and you often are testing
Only been recently (in "gamer" years) they started taking a page from EAAC games and started charging us for feature incomplete titles.
You certainly aren't the only person playing EACC games which you well know, but you do have a flair for the dramatic.
I have no idea what EACC is
I do know that many develolpers who do not use Steam Early Access like to use the phrase Early Access because they know how popular Steam Early Access is so they call their deployments Early Access
But...we would be better served to not be lazy and make the distinction when speaking. Which I will do moving forward and hopefully others will as well
Ahh, well you were complaining in another thread that EA was the worst acronym we could use for early access, so I thought I'd toss out EACC to see if it sticks.
what the fuck does the CC stand for?
how about EAG - early access games
Not worth trying to explain.
Since you enjoy making this distinction it should really be SEA.
what does the CC stand for please?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I'm sick of "testing" games, I want to PLAY games, not test them.
It's alpha, you can't complain about the bugs !
It's Early Access, you can't complain about the lack of content !
Pffft !
I very honestly feel sorry for folks with your point of view.
They are really missing out on the best 'revolution' in gaming history right now. Lots of great games
Are they going to do a server wipe?
Did you ever think that some people might not have 100 hours to put into a game only to have that progress disappear?
The problem is not with the people waiting for the game, but the people putting games into a perpetual state of testing. My assumption is that if something is in Early Access, it will be wiped at some point. That's not cool with me.
Are you against people testing it so that it comes ready and unbroken into your hands, at day of release? I don't get your viewpoint. You're fine to prefer not testing unfinished products - but are you against people making sure that the finished product is the best possible it could be?
What mate...
Nope! Not at all! I'm a huge supporter of early access and crowdfunding. I've tested numerous games. I'm even happier that there is a very enthusiastic crowd who is more than willing to invest hundreds of hours into testing a game. I'm just at a point in my life where time carries a high value, since it's at a premium. My kids play plenty of early access, but they've also played hundreds of hours of Pay Day, so they obviously have time to burn
anyone who thinking playing Early Access games is most 'testing' has no experience at all in early access nor has a grasp of testing.
its not remotely like that and I should know because I am the only person on this forum who appears to actually play early access titles and in large amount of time
Well it is MMORPG game forum so around these parts early access usually means alpha or beta and you often are testing
Only been recently (in "gamer" years) they started taking a page from EAAC games and started charging us for feature incomplete titles.
You certainly aren't the only person playing EACC games which you well know, but you do have a flair for the dramatic.
I have no idea what EACC is
I do know that many develolpers who do not use Steam Early Access like to use the phrase Early Access because they know how popular Steam Early Access is so they call their deployments Early Access
But...we would be better served to not be lazy and make the distinction when speaking. Which I will do moving forward and hopefully others will as well
Ahh, well you were complaining in another thread that EA was the worst acronym we could use for early access, so I thought I'd toss out EACC to see if it sticks.
what the fuck does the CC stand for?
how about EAG - early access games
Not worth trying to explain.
Since you enjoy making this distinction it should really be SEA.
what does the CC stand for please?
E(arly) ACC(ess)...EACC.
It's a style of abbreviation where I work where as large as we are all of the good 2 and 3 letter acronyms have been used, some multiple times.
Causes awkward situations where just recently two email posters were having a spirited debate copying in 30 or so of us until someone interjected the GSD system(s) they were discussing were two different ones.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It's a style of abbreviation where I work where as large as we are all of the good 2 and 3 letter acronyms have been used, some multiple times.
Causes awkward situations where just recently two email posters were having a spirited debate copying in 30 or so of us until someone interjected the GSD system(s) they were discussing were two different ones.
Not as obvious as I had thought.
are you serious? the cc stand for the second and third letter in the word Access. which the word Access is also already taken care of in the letter A in EAcc
you have got to be fucking joking me.
hand to god I think the Russians are behind this bullshit
Lets try this Steam Early Access Games = SEAG
Early Access Games = EAG Electronic Arts = EA
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
people play early access titles because a game in early access looks fun to play. They DONT buy the games with testing in mind, nor do they test, nor do they feel like they are testing, nor are they buying them with a hyper focus on the future state of the game. They buy them to play and have fun...full stop
and yes..wipes do happen but if its a choice between playing EQ2 so I dont loose my data or somethign like Space Engineers with the risk of loosing my data I can assure you for me and millions of others Space Engineers will win that contest hands down
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I never once said that people were testing, hence the million-monkeys reference. This is the reason that 1000 people actively participating in testing in the "bad old days" was more effective than paid alpha and beta programs today. People in beta and alpha programs today don't test either (wide-sweeping generalization).
You're exactly right. Early Access is exactly how you're describing it. It's a game in some state of release with undetermined quality. However, you can download and play it immediately with the understanding that there could be quality issues or the game may never be fully-released.
Again, I appreciate that you're having fun playing Space Engineers for hundreds of hours, but if there is an explicit date for a wipe, then I wouldn't play it myself. You don't need to feel sorry for people like me, though. I just happen to have better things to do with my time.
There are games like Ark and Rust and 7DTD which might continue to maintain their Early Access, but these are illustrations of problems with the current model and accountability. For THESE games, I would refuse to buy them specifically for the optics that they are using Early Access as a vessel to escape any accountability to their user base. That's a completely different issue, though.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
You said the following:
'I'm sick of "testing" games, I want to PLAY games, not test them.
Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/464679/alpha-2-preview-citadel-studios-is-building-a-true-sandbox-world-legends-of-aria-interviews/p2#gFvULrRh3jMoFbsQ.99'
so are you saying you are a special snowflake in which you personally are sick of testing but everyone else does not test or that they do test they just dont say that they are....rolls eyes?
you state you are 'sick of testing' and yet I am telling you I have never heard an Early Access player EVER not ONCE say they feel like the are testing, sick of testing, want to be a tester, or is like testing.
now to be fair to the OP we (at my fault) got off tract so I need to take the higher ground here and punt on this discussion on this specific OP thread.
sorry
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Nope! Wrong again! I never said that. Somehow I'm not surprised by your lack of attention to detail, though.
What I DID say was I had a problem with games that put their games into a perpetual state of testing, but that applies to Alpha and, more so, Beta. I think it's irresponsible of games like Ark, 7DTD, Rust, etc. to take advantage of a system that's intended to promote innovation and risk-taking. Furthermore, I think it's irresponsible for Steam to allow it to happen. How can a game be in "Early Access" and release an expansion? Or be in "Early Access" and cut a retail console version of your game? The problem is that the very games that could be your greatest ambassadors for Early Access are also the ones tarnishing it. Plus, it's not only affecting Early Access games, but crowdfunded games, too. Early Access, in it's current state, is inherently absolving the developer of any real accountability.
There could be ways to prevent this from happening, or to encourage a release (like discounting any prices by 40% until release), but it would ultimately mean Steam taking a financial hit as well, so that will never happen. Also, for the 1% of cases it helps solve, it will hurt another 80% of games which are ACTUALLY struggling to realize their vision.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Edited correction on my part:
you ask me if players who put in a hunderns hours are concerned about wipes. My implication (which is also factual) is:
ME: someone who has played hunderns of hours in early access and has had content wiped
YOU: I assume have not.
so your in effect your asking if how to I feel about it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Apology accepted!
Yeah, I have had my progress wiped a multitude of times, sometimes multiple times on multiple games. My point was simply that you don't really need to feel sorry for people who have had different experiences than you. Actually, telling someone that you feel sorry for them for not having played hundreds, or thousands (in your case), of hours of Early Access games might paint a different picture of you than what you think it does.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Although I do understand that people like different games it is of my personal opinion that the discrepancy of value in all areas of the game between something like Ark and EQ2 is so vast and so extensive across all areas of variable game play, that when someone says they would rather not play something like Ark and instead play something like EQ2 because of server wipes I very frankly find it very hard for me to believe that they have actual experience with both games.
That is how wide of a difference I personally see the two areas of the gaming industry, not a 1 out of 10 kinda difference, not a margin of difference, not a what kind of games people prefer difference but more of a horsecart vs as airplane as a stated objective only to move an item from one location to another is. its beyond subjective.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I can agree with you on Ark. Actually the game I'm looking at right now is PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds. A couple buddies are playing it, and it seems fun. It's not an MMORPG, though. Legends of Aria is, and it's likely going to be more time intensive and progress is going to be something that is important, or at least more important than something like Ark or Battlegrounds.
BTW, I DO have Alpha access to Legends of Aria, too, and I might drop in to check it out on occasion, but it's only in the interest of seeing what the progress is like and may not be more than a few hours. Similar idea with Wolcen, which I have. I did the same with Grim Dawn, I bought it early, played through Act 1 and left it until release. Same goes for Marvel Heroes Omega, I was in CBT and played a couple chapters until OBT (where there are no more wipes) and I'm now 3 times further than I was in CBT and still playing. Like I said, I'm not saying you're wrong, but some players DO want a more complete experience. For me, personally, that means relatively certainty of no more server wipes and, also, a more complete story.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I do think loosing progression is a factor but I dont think in the large average that its a deal breaker.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Only been recently (in "gamer" years) they started taking a page from EAAC games and started charging us for feature incomplete titles.
You certainly aren't the only person playing EACC games which you well know, but you do have a flair for the dramatic.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I do know that many develolpers who do not use Steam Early Access like to use the phrase Early Access because they know how popular Steam Early Access is so they call their deployments Early Access
But...we would be better served to not be lazy and make the distinction when speaking. Which I will do moving forward and hopefully others will as well
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
how about EAG - early access games
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
So it sounds good on paper but will not work to realize a Triple A mmorpg and a busy one at that.Instead they are doing like most claim,to be a MMO because the login screen says so.
Also relying on players for the game world also will not work because at the very best you end up like that NW online where every quest looks the same using the same assets and became extremely boring after 1-2 weeks.
Way too many wannabe developers trying to be a part of the MMO craze without the budget nor the manpower to create assets to fill a world and create scripted content and tons of AI to bring a world to life.As shown in one fo their marketing videos,a few hubs with a few dotted assets then ends with pvp,which is typical of games with no content,let's just pvp 24/7.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Since you enjoy making this distinction it should really be SEA.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Cool thanks, perhaps I misunderstood.
They are building a large official server map right now.
Is it better when servers are emulated then?
There are a few hundred emulated UO servers. Too bad it is hard to change the maps or graphics of it, else it would be more successful.
Problem seems to be that emulating such servers seems to be illegal
So if someone offers to give sort of open code and give people a legal way to open shards, then it is bad?
As far as "Legends of Aria" is concerned...yeah, sorry... been playing it and it's honestly a HUGE step backwards from Shards Online, and it's not just the name change that sucks too. The only descent thing is probably the streamlined UI, but even then, they removed almost all the combat abilities associated with weapons and skills.
They have archery now..but yay, only ONE bow, long bow. Arrows are ridiculously tedious to craft, since you literally craft 1 freaking arrow with one whole plank of wood. That and 4 freaking arrows weigh 2 stones, the same weight as a rapier, and a long bow weights 16 stones. You'll need around 200-250 arrows to hunt properly, and that'll weight you down 100-125 stones of your like...280-290 carry capacity? This is before you throw in your food, bandages, potions, and the coins you'll find. Oh yes, coin bug is still around, since forever, so you'll carry 3000 copper instead of 30 silver and since coin weight is calculated by amount of actual coins, regardless if its copper, silver or gold, you'll be super weighed down.
Combat was NEVER a selling point for Shards Online, it was very slow for me, melee combat in particular. Unless you went daggers/fencing or a mage. Macing, swords, and especially archery is a snooze fest. Did I mention that npc mob archers can run and shoot at you? And yes, you can't do that..lol.
A tamer? Ok, but have fun running around the map to find ONE freaking brown bear to tame for your .1 skill gain. Now to spend another 10 minutes running around a new 25x larger map, that's entirely devoid of much of any mobs or critters, to try to get your taming up. Spawn hubs and camps like the "Goblin Mines"? Want to go in to farm? Ok, one player can camp the entire camp, it's that small of an area and that few mobs spawn. Mobs outside of said camps? Maybe an animal , which drops no coin, or an occasional roaming ogre near the Shrine camp, but nothing else.
This sounds like a rant no? Probably because this game was at least "somewhat" fun during Shards Online, but still lacked a lot of content, abilities, skills, and polish...but now with "Legends of Aria" the game feels even more archaic, slow, and it literally dumbfounds me why they made all these shitty changes to the game. I for one will just stop logging on until they have a new patch or something because yeah, the games a boring pile of wannabe sandbox-UO game with not a bit of fun UO offered.
You reap what you sow.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It's a style of abbreviation where I work where as large as we are all of the good 2 and 3 letter acronyms have been used, some multiple times.
Causes awkward situations where just recently two email posters were having a spirited debate copying in 30 or so of us until someone interjected the GSD system(s) they were discussing were two different ones.
Not as obvious as I had thought.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
are you serious? the cc stand for the second and third letter in the word Access. which the word Access is also already taken care of in the letter A in EAcc
you have got to be fucking joking me.
hand to god I think the Russians are behind this bullshit Lets try this
Steam Early Access Games = SEAG
Early Access Games = EAG
Electronic Arts = EA
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me