It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Potzato: I may have been harsh but let's consider the example :
Alice pays for alpha access on game X because it will be an rpg with good story as thee devs intend.
Bob, Charlie and Doyle come some time later pay for alpha access for game X because it looks very nice. They don't care about story, they want nice models and they provide feedback accordingly.
At the end of the alpha, if Alice didn't get what she wanted originally it's not her fault nor the devs, in my opinion Alice should be able to ask for a refund, but the thing is the "alpha access" system doesn't work like that.
That isn't the sort of changes you're supposed to let an alpha influence, and if that example actually happened, you would in fact be dealing with a terrible developer.

The point of an alpha/beta is to have more people look at it to identify issues and possibilities that enhance the original idea - things that the developers may not have thought of. Core design goals are not part of that (but small tweaks to them may be).
avatar
Pidgeot: snip
In my understanding (and I know I am not alone here) Beta stage is for balance and bugs (in general). Alpha is still design ; features may be missing.
avatar
paul1290: I do NOT think Early Access nor Kickstarter are the problem, instead I think they are exposing something that was already there.

I can go online and with enough searching about any book I could possibly want in whatever genre I feel like reading. If I want it, someone probably writes it.
The same goes for music. I can search around and find just about any music I feel in the mood for with enough digging.
I usually don't have to worry about it being popular enough to exist and I generally don't have to worry about the current fads dictating what I can and can't have.

I still cannot do this with games. It largely depends on the current fads and what is popular enough to exist that dictates what I can get.

If you think a store like Steam lets through too much stuff then you should see stores for what in my opinion are "sufficiently diverse" art forms like books and music. In this case by "sufficiently diverse" I mean doing a good enough job at providing something for everyone that the above doesn't become such an annoyance.

Gamers take risks buying games that may or may not be finished because they are not satisfied with what they can buy that is finished now. (Yeah I know that sounds so boringly straightforward)
Early Access and Kickstarter projects are a very popular right now because they're finding opportunity filling in gaps that nobody has bothered to fill as gaming grew in popularity so rapidly. Eventually those gaps will be filled and the demand for those projects won't be so high.

Personally, I haven't heard many arguments for more "quality control" or against Early Access and Kickstarter that don't also in some way translate to "I wish I could limit what you can buy because I don't want to have to think too hard about my purchasing decisions!".
Well said.
Unfortunately time investment to reward for video games is so much higher than those other mediums that I'm not sure if we'll ever hit "sufficiently diverse".
But as tools become more available and skills more prevalent I still have some hope that we'll get there.
avatar
Potzato: I don't understand why "to like more" doesn't make any sense ?

If you like the alpha more than the finished game, the majority of people would consider that the alpha didn't hold its promise. And can you ask the devs to let you play on the alpha version when the game is finished ? That's unheard of.
Because it is shifting the goalpost. This is about people liking to play games in alpha/beta stages, which do not precluded liking it better or worse than the final product. Adding the "better" makes the whole discussion meaningless and creating a needless dichotomy... If you start shifting the goalpost like this, then everything you do can be polarized in the same way, and we end up with all of us ever doing only one single thing - the one we "like more". The point here is not what we "like more" but what "we like" - so I ask again "if someone likes to play alphas and betas and watch a game develop, should they not be allowed to do so?"

In the end, they may like the end product more than the alpha/beta product, however this is not to say that they did not enjoyed the earlier versions, or in fact that the appreciation of the final product may be increased just to know what it has gone through during its development. Why is it wrong for someone to enjoy this? or even absurd?

avatar
Potzato: I said "proper guarantees". You are kind of paraphrasing :)
Proposing to people to fund the game without telling them that the game will not see the light of day if there is not X people buying the alpha is dishonest. I don't believe it's common practice but Nothing prevents devs from doing so.
Not as long as the game is sold as a alpha/beta. You buy a game as alpha/beta - you get a game in alpha/beta. If the developer stops production, you still got a game in alpha/beta. This is a risk which is inherent in this process, but it is not unethical to do this. If you do not want to take this risk, then just do not buy an alpha/beta. "Caveat emptor" is a principle which applies here also, as with everything you buy.

avatar
Potzato: I may have been harsh but let's consider the example :
Alice pays for alpha access on game X because it will be an rpg with good story as thee devs intend.
Bob, Charlie and Doyle come some time later pay for alpha access for game X because it looks very nice. They don't care about story, they want nice models and they provide feedback accordingly.
At the end of the alpha, if Alice didn't get what she wanted originally it's not her fault nor the devs, in my opinion Alice should be able to ask for a refund, but the thing is the "alpha access" system doesn't work like that.

Point is : devs shouldn't ask for money for alpha access (paying for mugs, not mugged for money !), and it shouldn't be opened to anyone. There should be a limited number of people possible, access through forum ....
Alice should make research into what she buys. The same applies to all games, not only alpha/betas. If Alice is not prepared to take this risk, she should not buy a game in alpha/beta stages and rather wait until it is complete. She bought a game in the alpha/beta stage when she did, and it looked attractive to her, and that is what she got.

Alpha/beta s are a risk, and if you do not like it, then don't buy into it. However, I think it is unfair to prohibit those who do like it to do so. I have bought many alpha/betas who have given me tremendous enjoyment, and I do not regret anyone of them. even thous that seem to be failing, I am glad I have the opportunity to try those concepts and games,no matter how buggy, and I do not regret paying the people who made them for it. But - I always look into it before buying, to make sure that it is something I would like playing. (as with all games I by)
avatar
amok: Personally I feel gOg is missing out. With games like Divinity: Original Sin and Wasteland 2 (games more or less being confirmed to appear here) - those who like early access have now bought it from a different vendor, they had no choice. So for each of these lost sales - it is gOg's loss. Not the player, nor the developers, only gOg's.
Actually, according to some of the developers the Early Access is different from the game. Those who get the early access on steam, can still pick GOG for the final game.
I no longer have the emails that proclaimed this, but I do know D:OS was one that has said that and I believe Wasteland 2 said the same thing.

But I understand your point...if I had the option to choose GOG with my Wasteland 2 early Access, I would have. However, that would require a client like Steam for easy update. The developers like the ability to update the game during the Alpha and Beta. It saves on erroneous error reports from someone playing an old version of the game.
Post edited February 18, 2014 by jjsimp
Also, I am enjoying Wasteland 2 pre-release more than any other game I currently have in my arsenal. Part of that is probably due to it being a Beta and a pretty fun game. But having the added bug finding mechanic in with my normal game, is really addicting to me. Maybe, it's just for those types of people that like to correct spelling on forums.
Also, not for those types of people that like to finish a game and put the game back on their virtual shelf proud of themselves for completing a game. If you don't like replaying games, stay away.
avatar
amok: Personally I feel gOg is missing out. With games like Divinity: Original Sin and Wasteland 2 (games more or less being confirmed to appear here) - those who like early access have now bought it from a different vendor, they had no choice. So for each of these lost sales - it is gOg's loss. Not the player, nor the developers, only gOg's.
avatar
jjsimp: Actually, according to some of the developers the Early Access is different from the game. Those who get the early access on steam, can still pick GOG for the final game.
I no longer have the emails that proclaimed this, but I do know D:OS was one that has said that and I believe Wasteland 2 said the same thing.

But I understand your point...if I had the option to choose GOG with my Wasteland 2 early Access, I would have. However, that would require a client like Steam for easy update. The developers like the ability to update the game during the Alpha and Beta. It saves on erroneous error reports from someone playing an old version of the game.
yeah, and even if you get a key for a gOg version later on, it makes it actually worse for gOg.

If you buy Wasteland 2 early access via Steam and later get a gOg key - it is Valve who get the 30% sales cut, not gOg. gOg is just left with the costs of bandwidth and maintenance, without the profit from the sale.
avatar
amok: yeah, and even if you get a key for a gOg version later on, it makes it actually worse for gOg.

If you buy Wasteland 2 early access via Steam and later get a gOg key - it is Valve who get the 30% sales cut, not gOg. gOg is just left with the costs of bandwidth and maintenance, without the profit from the sale.
Oh, I meant to say I did the Kickstarter. You are probably correct in that, but I can still give GOG a cut, because I supported the KS not the early access. I hope GOG gets a little something. At least it lets the developer know there are people on GOG that would want to play their games.
avatar
Pangaea666: No worries. You got a Plus from me, in addition to the OP.

I find it so sad that the digital world has become this uncontrollable beast of DRM, spying and horrible business practices. GOG is an oasis in the desert, and I hope they never dry up.

It has been so sad to see Humble Bundle, which at one point in time was pretty darn great, turn into a subsidiary of Steam (spit). I hope something like that never happens to GOG.
avatar
groze: Thank you so much for your kind words!

As for GOG, I have to say I have a good feeling they will stay true to their roots, I'm not overly worried about them becoming yet another faceless corporation of out-of-touch sellouts. In fact, this is what you read in the job description for Brand Director, one of the job offerings GOG is making:

GOG.com is already 5 years old! We have grown from being a small startup company to being the 2nd biggest independent distribution platform of PC & MAC games worldwide.
Fast growth means lots of projects to handle, new talented employees to welcome, partners to work with, media to amaze, business opportunities to evaluate and features to deploy. Enough to make us very busy and to be honest, sometimes we forget our roots...
The good news is, we need you -- our potential Brand Director -- to become the guardian of GOG's identity and make sure that we stay true to our core values of honesty, passion and creativity in any public action we take on the PR & Marketing side. We want to remain faithful to our brand no matter what, provide delight to gamers and amaze media. We don't want to become another soulless storefront. We want to remain GOG-ish and keep pushing the DRM-free revolution forward!
avatar
groze: Is this a sign of hope, or what? I think it sure is. :P
I sure hope so! :)

To me at least, GOG is the last true defender of DRM-Free gaming out there. The others have been lost to corruption and greed. Sellouts if you wish. GOG is thankfully still around and waging the good fight, and I hope they keep doing so. As long as they do, I'll be a customer here.

Speaking of... it's becoming very difficult to NOT fork out for Banished, although I told myself I should wait a little longer :whistle:

To the comments above about early access...? This is just yet another terrible ploy by unconscionable providers. You are paying to become a beta tester. Yay!
Post edited February 18, 2014 by Pangaea666
avatar
gooberking: The ones that you pay money for today, get to play today, and are actually fully functional experiences where the zombies can't walk through walls.
Ask the people who preordered Eador: Masters of the Broken World... To be fair, this was not GOG's fault but the developer's; the reason most games on GOG work without patching is because they have already been out for a while and had had their most critical patches.
avatar
gooberking: ...is GoG the only vendor still releasing actual games?...
avatar
Trilarion: No, the other distributors also sell fully functioning releases, but GOG is less often (not never) doing the pre-order or season-pass thing. Still I think you can find many games released here have also been released somewhere else. Sometimes even earlier somewhere else.
So...you do realize I am fully aware that other retailers do in fact sell finished games, and that I was exaggerating the situation somewhat to engage in topical discussion, right? Technically speaking it was more a comment on the current climate in regards to advertising and what people are being influenced to buy.