For anyone interested, I was banned for raising this concern in their discord
Reading that it sounds like you were banned for your behavior and the methods you used to contact them.
I used the methods they asked for, which was to discuss it through modmail. In which they lied to me and blamed Steam and Nintendo for removing the beta tags, and advised I contact them to ask why. Not sure why that's ban worthy.
I feel like they're trying their best to shove any concerns people have as to it's beta/early access status under the rug. If that's what they want to do, fine, their game and their subreddit/discord but I don't like it and don't want to support a company that does that sort of thing. If they're not willing to be open and transparent about something so simple as whether or not the game is in development then it leads me to believe they're not a trustworthy organization and therefore not worth my time.
That's exactly what my concern is. It shouldn't be difficult to be honest about something so simple. Especially when being in beta works in their favor. Now it feels like they're gaslighting us by saying they didn't know they couldn't opt into early access after releasing, when I personally discussed that with the CM, warning them that this was a time sensitive matter and following up with them frequently before launch.
What is the difference between this game being called Beta, Early Access or Released? Can someone explain the impact to me?
Are they going to wipe?
If not, I really fail to see the difference.
But why not include the standard 'early access' warning if it's so low-stakes? Doesn't it suggest that the publisher has identified some value in not doing so?
It seems likely that they are being deceptive with a design toward gaining a larger playerbase earlier, or perhaps even an attempt at getting substantial microtransaction revenue rolling.
What is the difference between this game being called Beta, Early Access or Released? Can someone explain the impact to me?
Are they going to wipe?
If not, I really fail to see the difference.
But why not include the standard 'early access' warning if it's so low-stakes? Doesn't it suggest that the publisher has identified some value in not doing so?
It seems likely that they are being deceptive with a design toward gaining a larger playerbase earlier, or perhaps even an attempt at getting substantial microtransaction revenue rolling.
It just seems like a ho-hum decision labelling the game as early access. It's not that big of a deal doing it. Plenty of games that get listed on Steam are early access and it doesn't really affect their success in the end one way or the other. That's why it's so perplexing and suspicious why they're not doing it with Palia. As I said earlier, it doesn't give a good first impression with Steam customers when the company gets evasive with it's development status.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
What is the difference between this game being called Beta, Early Access or Released? Can someone explain the impact to me?
Are they going to wipe?
If not, I really fail to see the difference.
But why not include the standard 'early access' warning if it's so low-stakes? Doesn't it suggest that the publisher has identified some value in not doing so?
It seems likely that they are being deceptive with a design toward gaining a larger playerbase earlier, or perhaps even an attempt at getting substantial microtransaction revenue rolling.
It just seems like a ho-hum decision labelling the game as early access. It's not that big of a deal doing it. Plenty of games that get listed on Steam are early access and it doesn't really affect their success in the end one way or the other. That's why it's so perplexing and suspicious why they're not doing it with Palia. As I said earlier, it doesn't give a good first impression with Steam customers when the company gets evasive with it's development status.
I'd have believed it was just a knee-jerk decision if they didn't purposely change their website days before the Switch version release date was announced between December 3 and December 8, and gave the switch version a different login screen that doesn't say 'beta' in the tiny text in the corner.
Baffling choice really when 'it's in beta' is a passionate defense a lot of the fans like myself had used for a long time, now I'm just left feeling conflicted by it.
What is the difference between this game being called Beta, Early Access or Released? Can someone explain the impact to me?
Are they going to wipe?
If not, I really fail to see the difference.
But why not include the standard 'early access' warning if it's so low-stakes? Doesn't it suggest that the publisher has identified some value in not doing so?
It seems likely that they are being deceptive with a design toward gaining a larger playerbase earlier, or perhaps even an attempt at getting substantial microtransaction revenue rolling.
It just seems like a ho-hum decision labelling the game as early access. It's not that big of a deal doing it. Plenty of games that get listed on Steam are early access and it doesn't really affect their success in the end one way or the other. That's why it's so perplexing and suspicious why they're not doing it with Palia. As I said earlier, it doesn't give a good first impression with Steam customers when the company gets evasive with it's development status.
They aren't avoiding the label to be cute, or to provoke potential customers. They believe the deception will yield profit in some way.
If we want to say the critics by posting and criticizing are crying or creating drama, that's fine. But doing so doesn't make the publisher's actions less questionable.
What is the difference between this game being called Beta, Early Access or Released? Can someone explain the impact to me?
Are they going to wipe?
If not, I really fail to see the difference.
But why not include the standard 'early access' warning if it's so low-stakes? Doesn't it suggest that the publisher has identified some value in not doing so?
It seems likely that they are being deceptive with a design toward gaining a larger playerbase earlier, or perhaps even an attempt at getting substantial microtransaction revenue rolling.
It just seems like a ho-hum decision labelling the game as early access. It's not that big of a deal doing it. Plenty of games that get listed on Steam are early access and it doesn't really affect their success in the end one way or the other. That's why it's so perplexing and suspicious why they're not doing it with Palia. As I said earlier, it doesn't give a good first impression with Steam customers when the company gets evasive with it's development status.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Usually what I see are companies using "Beta" or "Early Access" as some kind of shield and excuse for a poorly functioning game that they sold you.
So I'm honestly not seeing the big conspiracy here unless there is some plan to wipe that they are hiding.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
What is the difference between this game being called Beta, Early Access or Released? Can someone explain the impact to me?
Are they going to wipe?
If not, I really fail to see the difference.
But why not include the standard 'early access' warning if it's so low-stakes? Doesn't it suggest that the publisher has identified some value in not doing so?
It seems likely that they are being deceptive with a design toward gaining a larger playerbase earlier, or perhaps even an attempt at getting substantial microtransaction revenue rolling.
It just seems like a ho-hum decision labelling the game as early access. It's not that big of a deal doing it. Plenty of games that get listed on Steam are early access and it doesn't really affect their success in the end one way or the other. That's why it's so perplexing and suspicious why they're not doing it with Palia. As I said earlier, it doesn't give a good first impression with Steam customers when the company gets evasive with it's development status.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Usually what I see are companies using "Beta" or "Early Access" as some kind of shield and excuse for a poorly functioning game that they sold you.
So I'm honestly not seeing the big conspiracy here unless there is some plan to wipe that they are hiding.
I doubt there's some sort of conspiracy with their decision. It's just so strange they didn't list it as early access and then get super defensive whenever anyone asks about it. Whatever. I played it awhile ago and I found it pretty boring but was willing to try it again on Steam to see if anything had improved. No loss for me but I just find their strategy for this to be odd.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
The game has shown very little improvement??? I’ve only been playing for a few months now and many things have been improved in that short amount of time…
""Usually what I see are companies using "Beta" or "Early Access" as some kind of shield and excuse for a poorly functioning game that they sold you.""
One day gamers are going to realise this but I am not holding my breath, early access will probably last as long as live service before gamers start to question it.
What is the difference between this game being called Beta, Early Access or Released? Can someone explain the impact to me?
Are they going to wipe?
If not, I really fail to see the difference.
The difference is that with a finished game you've got larger right to expect that everything is finished and works, and also larger legal right to ask for refunds and/or compensation if you encounter any problems.
As compared to products that are unfinished or only in testing phase, where your tolerance for errors must be higher.
By not telling that Palia is in testing phase the devs have created a situation where it's uncertain what expectations you should rightfully have. And also they're in violation of EU consumer protection laws that oblige sellers to give this kind of important information.
What is the difference between this game being called Beta, Early Access or Released? Can someone explain the impact to me?
Are they going to wipe?
If not, I really fail to see the difference.
The difference is that with a finished game you've got larger right to expect that everything is finished and works, and also larger legal right to ask for refunds and/or compensation if you encounter any problems.
As compared to products that are unfinished or only in testing phase, where your tolerance for errors must be higher.
By not telling that Palia is in testing phase the devs have created a situation where it's uncertain what expectations you should rightfully have. And also they're in violation of EU consumer protection laws that oblige sellers to give this kind of important information.
But it's free to play right? Is there an actual example of a system that is broken currently which would/should result in monetary compensation?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Comments
I used the methods they asked for, which was to discuss it through modmail. In which they lied to me and blamed Steam and Nintendo for removing the beta tags, and advised I contact them to ask why. Not sure why that's ban worthy. That's exactly what my concern is. It shouldn't be difficult to be honest about something so simple. Especially when being in beta works in their favor. Now it feels like they're gaslighting us by saying they didn't know they couldn't opt into early access after releasing, when I personally discussed that with the CM, warning them that this was a time sensitive matter and following up with them frequently before launch.
It seems likely that they are being deceptive with a design toward gaining a larger playerbase earlier, or perhaps even an attempt at getting substantial microtransaction revenue rolling.
It just seems like a ho-hum decision labelling the game as early access. It's not that big of a deal doing it. Plenty of games that get listed on Steam are early access and it doesn't really affect their success in the end one way or the other. That's why it's so perplexing and suspicious why they're not doing it with Palia. As I said earlier, it doesn't give a good first impression with Steam customers when the company gets evasive with it's development status.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
Baffling choice really when 'it's in beta' is a passionate defense a lot of the fans like myself had used for a long time, now I'm just left feeling conflicted by it.
If we want to say the critics by posting and criticizing are crying or creating drama, that's fine. But doing so doesn't make the publisher's actions less questionable.
Usually what I see are companies using "Beta" or "Early Access" as some kind of shield and excuse for a poorly functioning game that they sold you.
So I'm honestly not seeing the big conspiracy here unless there is some plan to wipe that they are hiding.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I doubt there's some sort of conspiracy with their decision. It's just so strange they didn't list it as early access and then get super defensive whenever anyone asks about it. Whatever. I played it awhile ago and I found it pretty boring but was willing to try it again on Steam to see if anything had improved. No loss for me but I just find their strategy for this to be odd.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
One day gamers are going to realise this but I am not holding my breath, early access will probably last as long as live service before gamers start to question it.
As compared to products that are unfinished or only in testing phase, where your tolerance for errors must be higher.
By not telling that Palia is in testing phase the devs have created a situation where it's uncertain what expectations you should rightfully have. And also they're in violation of EU consumer protection laws that oblige sellers to give this kind of important information.
Is there an actual example of a system that is broken currently which would/should result in monetary compensation?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018