Age of Conan

AO had a horrible launch and suffered for years because of it. For those who don't remember and for those who do not want to remember here is a link to a review from 2001.

www.somethingawful.com/d/game-reviews/anarchy-online.php

Now they have a open beta which has turned into a PR disaster. Everyone knows that a open beta is just pure marketing but this one has had about the same effect as Vanguards did which really put a whipping on it's pre orders. Now I cannot blame Funcom for having a open beta, fans of the game expect one and if it does not happen the company would be accused of covering up something or being ashamed of their product.

This is not the year 2001 though and the MMO world is a lot more sophisticated. Covering up a bad launch is harder than just deleting the negative posts on the companies official bulletin board. Now there are hundreds of game related boards and guild boards and a good chance that most everyone knows someone in the closed beta whether they have a open beta or not.

So the question is simple, should they have had a open beta or just launched without one and let the chips fall where they may? I say yes because there is a chance they may get the game playable before launch and everyone would have found out  anyway, or been real pissed if it would not run when they brought the box home.

I don't believe open beta is pure marketing. I really do think it helps the company gauge its networks, and other technical things I have no idea about. I would imagine it has a lot to do with marketing, so its probably a good idea to put your best foot forward. Then again, if the game comes out, and gets positive reviews I honestly believe people would buy it despite a not-so-stellar open beta.

Well...the game hasn't launched yet...so it can't have been bad, yet.

No, I don't think there should have been an open beta.

People whined that they weren't having one, so they cave in and let the public participate in stress testing.

Now people bitch.

As  a CB tester, I would have been more than willing to help stress the US servers for them, instead of allowing a bunch of whiny brats looking for a free game to play do it.

FC should have stuck to their guns.

What's almost amusing to me at this point is that it doesn't matter if the build people are using now is the same one as the closed beta, retail build, etc. This close to launch, most people ASSUME it is the retail build, since the game has gone gold. After all, perception is reality - try to argue with that.

In this age of sophistication, a company should run a stress test (not an "open beta" long before they announce their disks have gone gold. The stress test should use a client and infrastructure that is at least 95% complete; the remaining work that is left should be related to content and minor tweaking.

I'm not in the beta right now, but I can simply state that I am concerned. Concerned about mistakes on PR just before launch, as well as concerns over the perception of the game. I'm looking forward to the game on release, and I hope that WAR at least learns from some of the issues AoC has experienced of late.

The "open" beta still has 10 days left. They have 10 days to resolve the Graphic stability issues, which I'm sure they will. The only complains right now are the low FPS. I'm playing the "open" beta right now and the only issue i see is the way the game eats your system Memory. This slows down the game after a couple of hours, but that is resolved by just resetting the game. IMO Yes they should have had a Open Beta. Just keep in mind that Open Beta =/= Gold Edition.

The only complain on Gameplay is the Team Annihilation Mini games. The games don't make any sense. Once you totem is destoryed the game is over. The totem is so easy to kill that games only last around 5 mins. Right now TFC is where the fun is at.

You can only answer this question by specifying which party you think should have benefited.

Was it good for funcom to have an open beta? I would say no, because i think it negatively impacted their sales, and eliminated some 'benefit of the doubt' that exists when people aren't really sure.

Was it good for customers to have an open beta? Yes. Because people get to better know what they are buying beforehand, and make a more educated decision based on some experience.

Being a customer, I am naturally inclined to look out for my best interest, and not that of some random company trying to make money. The moment we start caring more about the company then the customer is the moment that the genre becomes worthless.

They need to get rid of the level cap. people keep saying things  are much better once you get past level 20.

So why won't they let us go there?

Yes, they should have had the open beta, but they should have used a current build of the client, not the older buggy build [disclaimer: I'm not in open beta; my opinion on the client is based upon opinions expressed here and elsewhere].

There is no question the open beta has hurt Funcom. Personally, I just pre-ordered based upon feedback from my guild, but just yesterday I was a hair from giving up on the game completely.

The Open Beta is essential to a great launch. You have to understand that the closed beta is spread out among many different level ranges so the amount of clutter that the open beta produced was essential to test network and engine stability. Marketing is certainly part of the equation, but a smooth and successful launch is the primary reason.

I voted NO, because the question asked was;

"Should they have had THE open beta?"

Which to me seems to be relating to the mess that we are witnes