I played Vanguard shortly after the release until the servers were shutdown. I enjoyed the game and it was better than a lot of the MMOs we are left with today. The thing that I found most frustrating with Vanguard was how often one class or another would get nerfed during an update. NOTE, even with that I would still be playing Vanguard if they had not shut it down.
One of the things that is exciting about the approach VR is taking has to do with thier combat simulator that they are using to have an understanding of how an ability will scale... Hopefully, this will mean that a class will not be nerfed after they go live...
Kilsin said:Community Debate - Would you rather a game you are following pushes an early release with many bugs and issues with the promise of regular fixes and updates or would you rather patiently wait for the game to be released in it's intended state? #MMORPG #CommunityMatters
If you put it this way then I'd rather wait for a finished game of course. But maybe you could consider stepped launch like content for levels 1-25 first, then 26-35 etc?
IIRC with Vanguard an issue was "we have to release now or the game won't release at all (due to money issues)". In such a case, I would rather take an early, buggy release. But even so, it is extremely important that the gameplay is as good and bug-free as possible. Then, quest or terrain bugs won't hurt as much.
I would like to add a slight twist to the question: Would you be willing to start playing in a (more or less) greyboxed game world, as long as gameplay / quests etc. are fully implemented?
A promise to regular fixes and updates is to be expected by any developer, no matter what state the game is in. So I don't see that as a valid extra reassurance and argument to push the releasedate of a game.
Any game that does not provide me with that garantee, is a game I would not play.
I rather play a game that has a good reputation due to a decent launch (meaning; few or shortlived bugs/(manageable?) after launch). Even if that means waiting for it. Let the dev's manage their own timelines internally. Amongst all the upcoming mmo's and their timelines, there is only 1 game that is theirs. Only one reputation to uphold.
Before launch you have less pressure of common players who want to have fun as in this population of players there is less focus on reporting bugs and issues.
A bug or issue before launch, is something to be reported by a player.
A bug or issue after launch, might end up being complains from players about the game. Thank social media for the fast spread of this.
Reputation matters and a bad rep due to a rushed launch is detrimental no matter how you slice it.
dorotea said: I can assure you that I intended no denigration by using the term "no lifer" in quotes.
Thanks Dorotea. I was sure you did not intended any, as I have read enough of your posts to consider you one of the more courteous and polite members on the forums.
By coincidence, someone else used that term in a post I read quite recently, and there seemed to be a noticeable bit of denigration in THAT use. Seeing it a 2nd time in a short period is what spurred me to address it in my comment.
I'd rather slower release just because it will sell better to those who aren't following the game.
If it was personal than I'd honestly rather the faster release, it's kind of fun dealing with bugs and balance issues at first, makes the game feel different every update. You even get to start playing earlier.
Someone brought up something on the MMORPG.com forums. Project Gorgon and if you could follow the same path. No wipes and servers always up and say charge $5 a month, I would play and sub as long as there was enough of a game to keep me playing.
((Someone brought up something on the MMORPG.com forums. Project Gorgon and if you could follow the same path. No wipes and servers always up and say charge $5 a month, I would play and sub as long as there was enough of a game to keep me playing. ))
This is something that has occasionally been discussed on these forums.
I expect that when we get to alpha - the first time that something actually resembling a real game will be available - testing will be every now and then with focus on things they specifically want us to test. If they offered a new pledge reward I bet a lot of us would upgrade to it. Something like "Extended access to test versions of Pantheon between scheduled test sessions. Note - the game will not be available continuously, characters will be subject to being wiped at any time as test versions are updated and stability is not guaranteed - these will be preliminary test versions of Pantheon."
I certainly would be willing to either pledge more or pay monthly for expanded access. At least one other game in development offered regular access to test versions as part of its pledge rewards - Ashes of Creation maybe. I found that very tempting but didn't like what I read about the game enough to make any pledges.
chenzeme said:Depends on the release:
Pre-alpha: many bugs: expected. Updates: as and when appropriate.
Alpha: many bugs: acceptable. Updates frequent as appropriate.
Beta: Few game play bugs. Glitches, quests problems, etc: acceptable. Update frequent.
Release. Very few bugs. Updates: frequent if missed bugs show up.
Personally I want to join the game as soon as possible, so am willing to put up with bugs in alpha and beta, but I would not be happy with many bugs in a full release. The more bugs there are at release, the more detrimental it would be to its sale value. There will be bugs. Thats a given. But the number and severity must be low.
Excellent point.
Personnally I ended Cyberpunk 2077 despite bugs, so I have a pretty high level of tolerance when it comes to bugs, but I understand that many players can be quickly disgusted by a too buggy game and never come back. I guess we have to find the right balance, and it could be interesting during the beta phase to frequently and regularly ask the testers if they think the game is in an acceptable release state, that could be an interesting data to monitor (through a public chart with a quantified objective maybe ?).
Beta is never going to work out all the bugs. Going from 1000 players to 100,000 players overnight is obviously going to produce a massive amount of bugs requiring a huge patch right after release. So, having said that. I think it’s about content. When you have lots of content, just release it and fix it as you go.
It really really depends on the type of bugs, if the bugs aren't game breaking or mar the experience too much. I don't see much of an issue. They can be patched and the company can use the money on release for a sigh of relief. Quests need to work, items need to work, crafting needs to work, aggro n such needs to work. Other than that, bugs happen.
The content that is available at launch should be as complete and as bug-free as reasonably possible. This is especially true of the starting and early level content. For example, if I can create a class, I should be able to play that class without glaring issues. The character I played in SWG, a droid engineer, was basically imcomplete on release. Most of the droids were buggy or just plain didn't work, and I had to try and sell them at a discount, convincing people that it'd be a great deal once they were eventually fixed in a patch. I played in the beta and preordered the game, I wanted to love it, but when they expected me to start paying a monthly fee for something in that state, I stopped playing after the 30 days that came with the game expired.
Bugs that come up that you weren't aware of are one thing, but knowing the game is buggy and full of issues and chosing to push it out anyway is another. Of course no game is ever going to be completely bug-free, but I think it's incredibly important for people's first experience with the game to be as smooth as possible. If later content isn't 100% up to snuff, that could be fine if you're willing to try and keep ahead of the majority of the player base in getting it polished. Some hardcore players that rush ahead might end up having some rough experiences, but these players are honestly more likely to be willing to work with you and put up with a bit of struggle and annoyance compared to the average player, especially if at this point they've had plenty of examples of good experiences that you've provided for them. But if people are presented with a buggy game out the gate, most are not going to want to stick around long enough to even get to the later stuff, and they will have no reason to believe you're even capable of creating a non-buggy experience if you've never shown them what that looks like.
If you're unable to bring the core mechanics and starting races, classes, zones, quests, etc. to a reasonable level of polish before you need to ship the game, then you need to cut content, make sure what is there is working appropriately, and then reintroduce more content when it is ready. If you have to cut some classes from release, or heck even an entire continent and its races, then so be it, but I think asking people to wait for more content that they have reason to believe will be actually be good and worth waiting for, comes across much better than asking them to wait for the content that currently exists to actually work and be enjoyable to play. "I know that we haven't managed to make a non-buggy game yet, but if you keep paying us, we promise we will eventually!" is a pretty hard sell.
asterlea said:The content that is available at launch should be as complete and as bug-free as reasonably possible. This is especially true of the starting and early level content. For example, if I can create a class, I should be able to play that class without glaring issues. The character I played in SWG, a droid engineer, was basically imcomplete on release. Most of the droids were buggy or just plain didn't work, and I had to try and sell them at a discount, convincing people that it'd be a great deal once they were eventually fixed in a patch. I played in the beta and preordered the game, I wanted to love it, but when they expected me to start paying a monthly fee for something in that state, I stopped playing after the 30 days that came with the game expired.
Bugs that come up that you weren't aware of are one thing, but knowing the game is buggy and full of issues and chosing to push it out anyway is another. Of course no game is ever going to be completely bug-free, but I think it's incredibly important for people's first experience with the game to be as smooth as possible. If later content isn't 100% up to snuff, that could be fine if you're willing to try and keep ahead of the majority of the player base in getting it polished. Some hardcore players that rush ahead might end up having some rough experiences, but these players are honestly more likely to be willing to work with you and put up with a bit of struggle and annoyance compared to the average player, especially if at this point they've had plenty of examples of good experiences that you've provided for them. But if people are presented with a buggy game out the gate, most are not going to want to stick around long enough to even get to the later stuff, and they will have no reason to believe you're even capable of creating a non-buggy experience if you've never shown them what that looks like.
If you're unable to bring the core mechanics and starting races, classes, zones, quests, etc. to a reasonable level of polish before you need to ship the game, then you need to cut content, make sure what is there is working appropriately, and then reintroduce more content when it is ready. If you have to cut some classes from release, or heck even an entire continent and its races, then so be it, but I think asking people to wait for more content that they have reason to believe will be actually be good and worth waiting for, comes across much better than asking them to wait for the content that currently exists to actually work and be enjoyable to play. "I know that we haven't managed to make a non-buggy game yet, but if you keep paying us, we promise we will eventually!" is a pretty hard sell.
I would add that expecting a person to pay full price and a subscription for an incomplete game is not on too. Until the game ships with the expected content, then the cost should be appropriately reduced in line with the amount of missing content.
Crowsinger said:There is a frustration level beyond which people will just stop. It's difficult to move past a buggy, disastrous release, because word gets around.
On one hand, FFXIV and ESO both did just that. But I keep remembering Vanguard.
FFXIV and ESO both are extablished IP with a built in fan base. Pantheon needs as close to a flawless launch as possible. Secondary features can be left out, IMO, though. How fast they get added in after launch is probably an indicator of how healthy the game is.
chenzeme said:I would add that expecting a person to pay full price and a subscription for an incomplete game is not on too. Until the game ships with the expected content, then the cost should be appropriately reduced in line with the amount of missing content.
I don't think this is necessary, as long as there is a full game worth of content available for the classes and races that are available. There is no rule that a game is only "complete" if it has X continents and Y classes, especially in MMOs that we would hope will be continuously expanding and being added onto over time anyway. It would also be incredibly difficult to raise subscription fees at a later date, so I think as long as there is enough solid content to start with, and they continue to add more with free updates in a timely manner, then it shouldn't be too much of an issue. It would be a pain for those of us following the game early who have our hearts set on certain races or classes, but for the average player, coming into a game with 10 classes instead of the currently promised 12 would likely not even be noticed. Similarly, those who aren't here following the game as closely as we are won't realize they're missing anything if there are only two continents available at release, as long as those continents are fleshed out enough that they aren't able to exhaust all of the content on them before the next becomes available. Or on a smaller scale, there could be dungeons that maybe even we don't know about yet that they can postpone and add back in at a later date. There can be in-world explanations made for why certain areas aren't accessable at the current time, and cool events associated with opening them up. Honestly, if it weren't for Pantheon's funding strategy, they wouldn't even have had to tell us all of what they're hoping to get in release until they were much further along and had a better idea of what they can actually complete, so we will only know if things have to be cut because they've been so open with us until now.
For comparison, if you look at the original map of Norrath for EQ, you can see that places like Paineel, The Hole and the Stonebrunt Mountains already existed in the lore, but they didn't actually get added to the game until later. There are other locations depicted that I don't think have ever been added. And yet I never heard anyone complaining about the game being incomplete at release. It wasn't an issue, partly because there was so much other stuff to do, and also because no one had the expectation for those places to be available to them. While it's up to VR to make sure they make enough content for it to work out, unfortunately we already have our expectations set, and they can't do anything about that other than hope we understand that just because something was planned to be in a game, that doesn't mean it's guaranteed to make it to release.
Obviously I hope it won't have to come to that, but if it turns out they've bitten off more than they can chew, then I'd rather they cut back on the scale and make a solid foundation that they can continue to add to in the future, than push out a bunch of half-finished and broken content. Also, I know the original question was asking if we'd prefer to wait, in which case, yes I definitely would, but if you get to the point where you're considering pushing a buggy game out, then I feel that there other options worth discussing as well.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Bugs are to be expected, just as good customer support and game support post-launch. Flush out as many major bugs as possible, and once the game is stable enough to hold thousands in game without crashing or getting toons stuck to a point where they are unplayable, then it is ready for launch...even if some high end zones need some more time.
Bugs are to be expected on any new MMO on release. If you have known bugs that will crash your game when X amount of players try to join a server that would seem like a bug you would want to address before releasing the game. It really depends on what the issues are and if they are extreme, if this is the case then the game needs to be delayed until you can fix this major issues. If the issues are minor then they can be fix post release. Like if you had some weird bug that if you step into this one location and your character's face turned inside out, but returns to normal once you leave. I think I can live with that so long as it got fix in a timely manor.
Kilsin said:Community Debate - Would you rather a game you are following pushes an early release with many bugs and issues with the promise of regular fixes and updates or would you rather patiently wait for the game to be released in it's intended state? #MMORPG #CommunityMatters
I don't think it can be an either/or situation.
If you wait till the game is perfect, no one will ever see the game. Such a game doesn't exist, even with ones that have been out for years.
We've all seen the results of releasing a game with "many bugs and issues". It gets crucified in the press and by the market in general. Sales suffer, reputation is trashed, and there are even possibilities of lawsuits demanding purchase returns be honored. There are very few rare exceptions where games have recovered from this kind of launch.
Reality is that you have to get the game out eventually, but you have to make sure its complete enough and stable enough that you wont get skewered in the court of public opinion.
Feyshtey said:Kilsin said:Community Debate - Would you rather a game you are following pushes an early release with many bugs and issues with the promise of regular fixes and updates or would you rather patiently wait for the game to be released in it's intended state? #MMORPG #CommunityMatters
I don't think it can be an either/or situation.
If you wait till the game is perfect, no one will ever see the game. Such a game doesn't exist, even with ones that have been out for years.
We've all seen the results of releasing a game with "many bugs and issues". It gets crucified in the press and by the market in general. Sales suffer, reputation is trashed, and there are even possibilities of lawsuits demanding purchase returns be honored. There are very few rare exceptions where games have recovered from this kind of launch.
Reality is that you have to get the game out eventually, but you have to make sure its complete enough and stable enough that you wont get skewered in the court of public opinion.
I agree and please learn form the the past you have to stop adding to be new diffrent at some point and start polishing what you have. If Vangaurd FF14 wildstar and EQNext can teach anything it needs to be fun and polished. That great Idea if broken will kill a game.
