Should VR drop alpha one now? As KiraTV has said in an old video he posted, letting people watch the game grow and develope will help VR attract more people. And with that, bring in more revenue to help with development. i personally think this is a good idea, but im interested in others opinions on the subject.
As a fan of course I'd be ecstatic to get my hands on the game, but if it's not ready it would be detrimental to development. If it was ready, they'd do it. So I can only assume it needs more time.
Worst case scenario is they open up Alpha too early and it's not ready, the masses get their hands on it and then it goes down in flames...I'd much rather wait than have that happen.
Ranarius said:As a fan of course I'd be ecstatic to get my hands on the game, but if it's not ready it would be detrimental to development. If it was ready, they'd do it. So I can only assume it needs more time.
Worst case scenario is they open up Alpha too early and it's not ready, the masses get their hands on it and then it goes down in flames...I'd much rather wait than have that happen.
but the masses cant get their hands on it. You have to drop money in order to get access. Its not like alpha is suppose to be a completed game anyways, right?
As someone who's been going back through old websites via waybackmachine and doing research about EverQuest before its release date, I really wish the creative process had been better documented and that those working behind the scenes were interviewed more, providing context, notes, and what not. So as frustrating as it can be, all things considered, this is the only time this will ever happen. To have been a fly on the wall while waiting for alpha, beta, and launch day, that itself would have been amazing for any of the other games we rank list in our top 10, top 20. I want PRotF to take over the number 1 spot, so for me that means waiting until the developers are ready and feel that the game is where it needs to be at each stage.
xHBloodHx said:Should VR drop alpha one now? As KiraTV has said in an old video he posted, letting people watch the game grow and develope will help VR attract more people. And with that, bring in more revenue to help with development. i personally think this is a good idea, but im interested in others opinions on the subject.
Would you really want to join an alpha where over half the classes aren't even in their most basic form? From what we've seen, only the DireLord, Shaman, Enchanter, Wizard, Rogue and Monk currently exist. If you were really wanting to test/play a Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Summoner, Cleric or Warrior would you really be that gung-ho about alpha opening?
Also, we've heard that 'several thousand' alpha testers are out there. What are they going to do? Where are they going to go? How many zones have we actually seen in streams...5? Thronefast, Avender's Pass, Halnir Cave being the most often with just snippets of Faerthale and Amberfaet. Do you really think that is enough to keep 'several thousand' testers occupied? How many servers would need to be spun up to cover all those?
This game isn't even close to ready for alpha. To go into it too early would actually do far more harm than good. Too many people will see this is as 'early access' no matter how many times VR tells them it isn't that they will just cry in their social media about how terrible the game is. VR doesn't need that.
Its not like alpha is suppose to be a completed game anyways, right?
Just for reference: https://www.pantheonmmo.com/news/producers-letter-march-2021/
Let me also be clear that the goal is not for Alpha to be representative of launch-ready, but Alpha needs to be much more polished than a traditional Alpha would otherwise require. Do not consider it early access. Unlike early access titles, only a small portion of the game’s content will be available for Alpha One, and several of its systems will only be available as a first iteration.
As Vandraad said, no matter how many times they say it, a good majority of people will never hear or read it. People will flock to what they think is early access. They'll be wrong, and they'll be disapointed. VR needs to be very careful moving forward.
No.
Theres plenty of users who have been keeping up with the progress and would know what thier getting into, but way too many are not mature enough (I'd use other terms but would rather not make the mods mad) to see the game for what it is now.
Then there also the fact that even if they tried to put a NDA into the alpha phase as well, it would just be way too many users to try and police. videos would get out, circle the web and the **** storm of people trying to re-create ToRtanic would flood out from there.
Don't mean to be harsh here. So take no offence.
Your choice of wording is very suggestive. What do you aim to get out of this thread?
In my opinion VR shouldn't have to do anything but what they themselves aim for and want to. There is no weight in the "should do" discussions. They can be an entertaining discussion for sure.
The youtuber you're referring to has his own style of broadcasting and scooping up viewers. While it's good to look around for information about Pantheon, taking your time to getting some indept knowledge about what VR stands for and how development works according to their vision can really aid you in answering your own question.
When it comes to replies, well they vary as wide as can be.
They are making progress and i'll meet the game at their terms.
Ben D and Chris P spoke about this as have I in the past, Alpha is actually Alpha for us but understanding people have a certain expectation means we need to at least deliver something that will hold up, if we released Alpha now it would probably gain a bunch of pledges and a lot more negative feedback from people who "play" Alpha's these days and expect a - close to perfect - full release.
This is not something we plan on rushing into as we want to get it right and set ourselves up for success. We will release Alpha once we're ready for that stage of testing.
xHBloodHx said:Should VR drop alpha one now? As KiraTV has said in an old video he posted, letting people watch the game grow and develope will help VR attract more people. And with that, bring in more revenue to help with development. i personally think this is a good idea, but im interested in others opinions on the subject.
Let me respond as someone who has been pledging since 2016....
VR is stuck in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If they released now, sure, they could generate some hype and pledges. That hype and pledges is a double edged sword. "The masses" are ALOT more unforgiving than most people give them credit for. Hell, look at all of the negative feedback at how long this is taking, when everyone knows that they have a dev team of less than a dozen people. Now, imagine letting those people into a game where major systems are "broken" or missing. Pantheon would likely go down in a flaming wreck. Sure, it would likely see release, but the negative PR would kill it. Most people who are upset that there is no alpha yet to play are people who want a "PR alpha", not a real alpha.
The thing that alot of those people complaining don't realize is that VR has released FAR more information about their game, given the stage of development that it is at, than 90% of the games developed out there. Most game studios, when at this stage, have released very little if any gameplay footage, live streams, or PR information. What gameplay footage they have released is, typically, cut-scene type of footage. EQ Next would be a prime example of this.
Some of us have been waiting since the original Kixtarter in 2014, and still more of us, like myself, have been waiting since the 2016 "re-release". Do you not think that we want to get our grubby paws on the game? Sure we do. But it needs to be at a state where "the masses" aren't going to start crying to every media outlet on the planet that the game is horrible because major systems are "broken" or "missing". Unfortunately, modern game development has spoiled "the masses" into thinking that games in the alpha and beta stages of development are fully baked and playable. Look at Star Citizen for an example of that with an alpha. It's been in development since 2015. It's been in "alpha" for a very long time and has been available to the general public to play. There is no grey boxing in the game. It's not REALLY a developmemnt alpha. It's a PR alpha.
No, until networking and the SRP I think it should be held back from players. You need the infrastructure to support the alpha server and you want the visuals to be standardized and the performance / size of zones to be ideal. After those two big items it is just polishing the game. By delaying the alpha access 6 months VR will hopefully shorten the release date by bringing in more financing. The logic is sound.
I share the OP's impatience. It has been a while and I can only sympathize with the many people that have been waiting a lot longer than I have.
Unfortunately I agree with the good reasons given above to continue waiting.
I do urge - not for the first time - that VR carefully separate out two different things and remember that the perfect is the enemy of the good. No good developer *ever* thinks that the game is as good as he or she can make it with just another few months of work.
1. Things that are needed for a well received release. Smooth play and only moderate bugs (by alpha standards). Most classes available and playable. Attractive graphics. Sufficient content to look like a real game - multiple zones and starting areas covering a lot more than levels 1-10.
For many of us this is not needed. We know that this will be alpha not an early access release of a real game. But VR needs something that will impress potential investors and that will not generate a lot of "this really sucks" publicity.
2. Fluff. Anything not needed for the foregoing however desirable it may be. Even if it is necessary for beta. It can be added later in alpha or even in the interregnum between alpha and beta.
I also remind that at least one other game in development plans a semi-permanent alpha that will be maintained even after alpha testing ends for backers to play with. Not updated perhaps but maintained. If this can be done at low cost for Pantheon it can generate additional bug reports even after official testing ends and can raise perhaps significant amounts of new pledge money by making semi-permanent access the cornerstone of a new pledge or upgrade.
No.
There are two things that still need to happen, in my opinion, before the game can move into alpha.
1. The networking and server stability have to be in a state where they can support the increase in testers. Last I heard VR was still working on this, and if they were to release into alpha right now servers probably wouldn't hold up.
2. The pet system needs to be implemented. The shaman, enchanter, druid, and summoner need this system. The ranger may need aspects of this system depending on how their ability to call animal companions works. The necromancer which is slated for post-launch will also need this system.
As people have stated above going into alpha early can be a double-edged sword. Alpha will be a time where a major influx of people come into the game. Their first impressions can make or break the game, and not everyone will be able to critically think or judge what they are experiencing, based on where the game is at in development. VR is mindful of this and is working on making sure all their major systems are in-game and the networking will support the influx. They understand that they need to "control the narrative", and offset negative sentiment by going into alpha, with it decently polished for an alpha state.
Kilsin said:[...] but understanding people have a certain expectation means we need to at least deliver something that will hold up, if we released Alpha now it would probably gain a bunch of pledges and a lot more negative feedback from people who "play" Alpha's these days and expect a - close to perfect - full release.
[...]
This is interesting to me, especially coming from much closer to the MMO "biz" (<- and all that entails) process then I am. I assume (<- key phrase, disclaimer implied) that this could mean: The perception of alpha from certain players is perhaps one of early-early access or no character wipes on release. On the other hand, this could also mean a very short alpha and by extension a shorter Beta which in turn would make a release much sooner than expected.
Some purists may demand adhereance to wipes, but depending on 1. how short alpha really ends up being and 2. how challenging the game is and 3. projected assumptions on average time players spend; the alpha progress may be slow enough to allow exploration of proper mentorship mechanics and perhaps progeny provided the new promise of no wipe is made through Beta, or made on progeny through release. The thinking being that those players characters carried over will not be sufficiently high enough to completely out level the throng on release, but will carry knowledge to be able to instruct the initial on-rush of new players into things like mentorship and progeny. Again, pure speculation.
Manouk said:Kilsin said:[...] but understanding people have a certain expectation means we need to at least deliver something that will hold up, if we released Alpha now it would probably gain a bunch of pledges and a lot more negative feedback from people who "play" Alpha's these days and expect a - close to perfect - full release.
[...]
This is interesting to me, especially coming from much closer to the MMO "biz" (<- and all that entails) process then I am. I assume (<- key phrase, disclaimer implied) that this could mean: The perception of alpha from certain players is perhaps one of early-early access or no character wipes on release. On the other hand, this could also mean a very short alpha and by extension a shorter Beta which in turn would make a release much sooner than expected.
...[truncated]
I can say honestly that, at least for me, someone who didn't really know what alpha meant from a programming standpoin, alpha access appealed to me as a way to get an early look at the game.
After a little more research, I began to understand that the term alpha has become somewhat fuzzy. Generally, I began to see that "Alpha Testing" is considered WORK...not a game.
Obviously this was confusing to my associative animalian mind...
Not to be deterred, I thought, " But this time the work IS a game"...
Aha!! Now I have it! No matter what they do now, I can claim complete and utter ignorance of the fact that I just paid them to do work..Willingly
"Well, Baerr," I thought, "you might look dumb but these guys are cool.."
It took an adjustment of my expectation and finally I thought, "Maybe it will just be nice to see what goes on behind the curtain a little. Geez, why did it take me a year to figure that out?"
I don't expect all people will go through that much looking into things, so I'll just post a quick description of Alpha here:
Alpha software is not thoroughly tested by the developer before it is released to customers. Alpha software may contain serious errors, and any resulting instability could cause crashes or data loss.[3] Alpha software may not contain all of the features that are planned for the final version.[4] In general, external availability of alpha software is uncommon in proprietary software,
Of course, I like what Ive seen so far, and I fully expect alpha to feel more like work than I initially expected. So I will pose a question to everyone including the OP not to disagree with the fundraising method, but simply to explore an alternative aspect...
Should alpha 1 testing admission be limited to people who have been invested for a while and another fuzzy phase like pre-beta or even just beta-release be added as a donation perk to allow community feedback with less uninformed backlash?
Perhaps fundraising can conflict in some cases with a quick release. Just my 2 cents, I hope the devs stay firmly with their principles until game release either way
StoneFish said: If the sign-in required loading a checklist of tasks to complete as a tester. A report needing to be filled out after X amount of play time and response to requests for directed action. Then I would release the game into "alpha". If VR could force the thousands of players into the mind set of testers then I imagine it could cut down on the perception that they are in a payed early access , solidify the idea that alpha tester are there to help make the game better
I would agree to an alpha if this were the case, and even then barely. Like most people on this topic my response would be no to releasing an alpha one now. The short term benefit is not worth the long term negative. I've seen people complaining about the animations, models, and such on the streams, I couldn't imagine actually letting those people play at this point. The mindset has definitely changed in the last 10-15 years on what an alpha/beta test actually is.
Because of the marketing departments of countless games, alpha and beta phases have become corrupted into a hyping mechanism to entice people into early access gameplay, and not its true intent as testing phases. Most people fail to accept or even realise that an alpha or beta release is not a complete game. They see such things as ommissions or issues with the game design. This generates negativity and actually can harm a game like Pantheon before it is ready.
VR have stated that "alpha" and "beta" are developmental phases in the truest sense. They will consist of limited numbers of "testers" who participate to comment on the design, feel and playability of the game, to bug hunting and to report on such things, to help make the game.
xHBloodHx: As KiraTV has said in an old video he posted, letting people watch the game grow and develope will help VR attract more people
As soon as the doors are open, yes, people will flood the game. If the game is incomplete or not polished, then almost as many will leave the game shouting how bad it is and failing to understand what is required of them. Testing the game, early on in its development is not the same as playing it to completion.
Stress testing the game is a major component too. Making sure that player loads can be coped with. Just opening the doors to 100s or 1000s of people without ensuring that the systems can cope will definately fail, and again make the game look bad. Alpha and beta phases will introduce more and more players and have longer and longer play sessions. Each stage will be examined for bottlenecks and problems. These will be fixed or re-worked, and retested. Opening the doors before that is done, it would be very ill judged.
I think the pledge system is the best way to ensure this. They can control the numbers of people at each stage easily and avoid the flood.
Nope, alpha testing is not early access for Pantheon.
Caine said:I would be happy with a silent Alpha launch. Increase your testers as neeeded with strict NDA restrictions. Even then continue to have live streams to control the narrative.
Those who pledged for alpha will be under an NDA just as everyone who pledged for pre-alpha is under an NDA. Would you be satisfied if you had pledged for alpha only to be told that when alpha opens that you aren't allowed in at that time while others are? How long, in terms of months, would you be content to sit there not having access for that which you paid when others have access?
VR needs enough implemented such that the "thousands of alpha pledgers" we've been told exist have enough to test.