Originally posted by Kryalis

Originally posted by Euphoryk

Originally posted by Turntable

 I think it´s fine that companies reward loyal customers with beta-access to new products. Actually I like the idea.

 

How does offering beta access for purchasing subscription time or pre-orders equal rewarding loyal customers?

Did you even read the article?

Purchased Subscription Time = Customer (and in this case it was purchased pre-Champions release so i'd throw in Loyal).

Have to say i'm feeling pretty darn bitter about the STO beta thing. Champions should be a F2P game, so my "lifetime" sub doesn't exactly mean anything (and it'll die a real quick death without swapping model soon). And then randomly selecting hundreds of non-paid beta slots (and even running numerous competitions for beta keys) prior to clearing the "paid for" queue just seems... mean.

Aion has no longevity either, it's a pretty F2P import game. And the insane launch queues were "fun" there too. But hey maybe it'll be fine, the subs a year from now (or even people that subbed after the first month) are a massivly better indicator than boxes sold.

I think you need to take a little personal responsibility for your actions. It isn't very wise to purchase a lifetime sub to a game that isn't even out in retail state yet. If they can lure people like you to purchase lifetime subs just to play some unfinished future game then they are going to do it. I myself would never do that.

Originally posted by rhinok

Along similar lines, what about F2P games that open their cash shops while they're still in beta?  One current example is Earth  Eternal, which is in open beta. Not only is it's cash shop open, but Sparkplay recently offered a discount on credits in an attempt to drum up business.  Why are they taking money during beta when the game isn't really ready for launch?  Considering that open beta characters won't be wiped, nor will items purchased for credits be revoked when the game goes "live", it seems to me that Earth Eternal is actually in a "soft launch" phase rather than a true beta.  I'm ok with that as long as they call it what it is, but it really ain't beta....

~Ripper

Once they start taking money I would say "Open for business.  Released."

This is just companies trying to have the best of both worlds by saying "It's Beta - so if it all goes wrong then you should have expected that."  My guess is their next line would be "We will be unable to give refunds due to the Beta Status..."?

Well, wrong.  Touching on fraud territory here.

Here, MMORPG.com, is a chance to start making a difference.
1/ Check to see if rhinok is correct (he will be I'm sure, but you have to check)

2/ Move Earth Eternal to the released games section.

If Sparkplay are not happy - put it to them that MMORPG.com will not support paid betas or F2P games conducting retail business within a 'Beta' as this is contrary to customer / gamer interest (people can get ripped off).
 

Spot on article.  I concur with almost everything said.

Sadly, these companies get away with it due to an old saying:  a fool and their money are soon parted.

Nice article :)

I completely their really should be a law about this putting out an unfinished game for a quick buck shouldn't be allowed.

Originally posted by Ghostmind

Originally posted by Persephassa

Originally posted by Ghostmind

Originally posted by Persephassa

The simple solution for me is to never spend money on something with the intention of relying on the company to follow through on nothing more than a promise. Advertised premiums or discounts are usually nothing more than a swindle. A good product can be sold soley on its merits of quality.

 

Champion's Online must not be succeeding like they would have wished for them to have to resort to swindling an entire different demographic (Star Trekkies) into propping up Cryptic's other game by purchasing lifetime subs(oh my) & 6-month subs for a game they have no interest in.

 

Not a valid theory here, as the offer was available before Champions even went live. So there's no chance the STO beta was offered in an attempt to "prop up" CO's "perceived failure."

Or maybe they knew CO wouldn't keep enough subscribers past the first month so they con people into purchasing 6-month, lifetime subscriptions? Makes sense to me.

 

I will concede if you can provide anything concrete, and I mean *anything*, in any situation, from any game ever, to support that beyond a tin foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist's deluded rantings. "They knew it was going to fail"...... Come on. Are you kidding me?

Hellgate: London... boasted "limited" Lifetime Memberships around $100ish bucks pre-release. People did buy them, but not in droves. Game was plagued with problems. Game lasted one year.

CO is the only other game I know of that offered lifetime subs. It is possible, to increase projected profit margin, they offered beta access as a perk just to have solid sales?. Why would that be a conspiracy? That's marketing at it's best.

Originally posted by Gyrus

But one more thing comes out of the article IMHO:
Jon Wood - what do you actually intend to do about it?

You are in a unique position where you can actually do something here.
MMORPG.com is very important to many developers simply because the members and readers here make up a large part of the target market.  You also have important industry contacts with people who are also in a position to do something here.
So, MMORPG.com is in a position to say "No.  We will not support this.  We will not run this promotion offering 'Beta Keys'.  We will not run this advert encouraging people to pay for one product in order to get access to the preview of the next."
That's not to say you cannot offer promotions or run adverts - but make it clear to Developers that they need to be clear (and fair) with the end consumer.  

Perhaps this article does this to some extent?  I hope to see this taken further.

As a columnist, I shared my opinion on this.

The bottom line though is that this site doesn't exist so that the staff can use it as our own personal tool to push our own personal agendas. That's not what it's about. What the site is about is players coming together to talk about issues raised in opinion pieces like this one, any of our regular features, news of the day or by other players on our forums. 

My job as a columnist is to present my opinions each week within the confines of this particular space. As a columnist, I don't drive policy for the site. As Managing Editor, my job is to make sure that we are doing the best job that we can to present you with news and information. It would be completely irresponsible of me to use that position to further my personal opinions and agendas.

This week, my opinion appears to be in the majority, at least among the folks replying in this thread. Last week though, my opinion was more in the minority. There were far more people disagreeing with my point of view than agreeing. That, in a nutshell, is why my using whatever influence I may have (and I think you may be over-estimating it a touch) in the way you suggest is probably a bad idea. While you might agree with me on this one, you might find yourself on the other side of the fence next time. Which is ok, that's how it's supposed to work.

The industry shouldn't shift on the weight that I or any other columnist, reviewer or writer on this or any other site can throw around. It should instead change based on what all of us as players, and yes consumers, of these products actually want. Whether we vote with our wallets, or we make our voices heard as you and everyone else here have done today, the result is going to be a lot more favorable if it all doesn't come down to the whims of a single individual.

Anyway, that's a bit of a rant, but you highlighted an interesting aspect of my job and gave me the opportunity to discuss the difference between my responsibilities as a columnist (sharing my opinion and even trying to get others on board with me) and my responsibilities as Managing Editor which require me to try to keep my personal feelings out of it.

Originally posted by Gyrus

Originally posted by rhinok

Along similar lines, what about F2P games that open their cash shops while they're still in beta?  One current example is Earth  Eternal, which is in open beta. Not only is it's cash shop open, but Sparkplay recently offered a discount on credits in an attempt to drum up business.  Why are they taking money during beta when the game isn't really ready for launch?  Considering that open beta characters won't be wiped, nor will items purchased for credits be revoked when the game goes "live", it seems to me that Earth Eternal is actually in a "soft launch" phase rather than a true beta.  I'm ok with that as long as they call it what it is, but it really ain't beta....

~Ripper

Once they start taking money I would say "Open for business.  Released."

This is just companies trying to have the best of both worlds by saying "It's Beta - so if it all goes wrong then you should have expected that."  My guess is their next line would be "We will be unable to give refunds due to the Beta Status..."?

Well, wrong.  Touching on fraud territory here.

Here, MMORPG.com, is a chance to start making a difference.
1/ Check to see if rhinok is correct (he will be I'm sure, but you have to check)

2/ Move Earth Eternal to the released games section.

If Sparkplay are not happy - put it to them that MMORPG.com will not support paid betas or F2P games conducting retail business within a 'Beta' as this is contrary to customer / gamer interest (people can get ripped off).

This is actually our current policy. I will forward this along to the proper people for verification.

Thanks for the tip.

Good article. But I am not sure Funcom had such "major" layoffs as you say, I know Mythic had them But Funcom still have a lot of employes left, so unless I missed something big had they just minor layoffs (and we are particulary talking devs here) . Of course that is mostly because Mythic only had WAR besides a few old DAoC player while Funcom actually is working on other games.

And of course were probably a lot of Mythics initial income pumped into EA while Funcom owns themselves and could put away the money for a rainy day. Mythic bet all on a single card and it isn't looking good. FC will be in the same problem if the secret world flops too.

But initial box sales for MMOs are only important for one company: Arenanet. They live on it and nothing more and they still seems to be doing fine, makes you wonder why WAR had to fire so many after both getting 1,5? or so million boxes and monthly fees in.  Of course were GW cheaper to make and it have sold 7 million boxes or so but it still seems somewhat odd to me.

Originally posted by Stradden

...

As a columnist, I shared my opinion on this.

...

Anyway, that's a bit of a rant, but you highlighted an interesting aspect of my job and gave me the opportunity to discuss the difference between my responsibilities as a columnist (sharing my opinion and even trying to get others on board with me) and my responsibilities as Managing Editor which require me to try to keep my personal feelings out of it.

Thanks for the reply.

The two hats thing - I totally get that.

In this case though I wounder where the line is?
I think many of us can see that some of the marketing practices are less than 'honest'?  So at what point should a site like MMORPG.com and you (Managing Editor hat on) step up and say "This is not right?"

Maybe you should just step back and passively observe?  You are not a 'sheriff' after all... but then again... the internet is still very much the wild west.  These companies are marketing in many cases to minors and do you and MMORPG.com have any responsibility if you convey their message?

I agree - no easy answer.

I don't agree with it at all. It's shady. But throwing box sales up as an indication of success works. And it IS the truth. That doesn't mean it is a whole and accurate picture however. People don't see the "2 billion served" under MCDonalds and expect to find 2 billion people in the restaurant ... But what if the wording were changed to imply? "2 billion seated?" "2 billion eating?" The box sales numbers imply a certain persistent population. We've sold 1million copies implies that we've got 1 million subscriptions, but they never say it so you can't really get them on fraud.

Selling a beta is the second worst idea in the history of gaming, right after completely changing the game (*SOE stinkeye*). Regardless of how it is sold, some people didn't buy a lifetime subscription to CO. They bought a beta key. They're going to want in. And they are expecting a $200 experience. What kind of loud mouth detractor do you create when they DESPISE the beta because it's crashing, bugged, choppy, and basically all the things a beta is? They aren't just going to hate on STO, they're going to give it to CO also. The game isn't even out yet and customers are throwing all sorts of big words around like "ethics" and "fraud".

The only way to fix this would be a public firing of the advertising director and the immediate inclusion of all lifetime purchasers ... then six month buyers. To hell with server strain .. its beta right? If you can't carry the small portion of the population interested enough to pay $200 for a key, WTF are you going to do on opening day? FAIL ... that's what.

I also haven't heard a word from  Cryptic on my STO  beta invite which I assumed I was going to get for purchasing the lifetime subscription. Now the game comes out in February and still no sign of an invite. Now, I don't really care for Star Trek at all and likely would have not tried the game out otherwise, but I was rather expecting that beta invite so that I could play the game and who knows, maybe they would have created a Star Trek fan and potential subscriber, but with the way it's looking now, I probably will never receive that invite.

In fact, not a single person I've played with in Champions Online has received the invite with what's very soon only going to be two months left of the beta. Considering their shifty tactics of cancelling the life-time subscription early even though they promised it to stay active until a certain date, I'm really not surprised.

Another article from Mr Wood having a go at MMO marketing. He is really not going to get that invite to the MMO PR Christmas party is he? :)

I think a lot of MMO’s now have their main focus on initial sales. They are being conceived and built like solo games, which only need to last a player one to two months. In the solo game market you don’t need the content to keep a player subbing. The strategy is that as long as enough initial sales are made it does not matter if the MMO is a long term success, a profit has been made already.

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by Gyrus

But one more thing comes out of the article IMHO:
Jon Wood - what do you actually intend to do about it?

You are in a unique position where you can actually do something here.
MMORPG.com is very important to many developers simply because the members and readers here make up a large part of the target market.  You also have important industry contacts with people who are also in a position to do something here.
So, MMORPG.com is in a position to say "No.  We will not support this.  We will not run this promotion offering 'Beta Keys'.  We will not run this advert encouraging people to pay for one product in order to get access to the preview of the next."
That's not to say you cannot offer promotions or run adverts - but make it clear to Developers that they need to be clear (and fair) with the end consumer.  

Perhaps this article does this to some extent?  I hope to see this taken further.

As a columnist, I shared my opinion on this.

The bottom line though is that this site doesn't exist so that the staff can use it as our own personal tool to push our own personal agendas. That's not what it's about. What the site is about is players coming together to talk about issues raised in opinion pieces like this one, any of our regular features, news of the day or by other players on our forums. 

My job as a columnist is to present my opinions each week within the confines of this particular space. As a columnist, I don't drive policy for the site. As Managing Editor, my job is to make sure that we are doing the best job that we can to present you with news and information. It would be completely irresponsible of me to use that position to further my personal opinions and agendas.

This week, my opinion appears to be in the majority, at least among the folks replying in this thread. Last week though, my opinion was more in the minority. There were far more people disagreeing with my point of view than agreeing. That, in a nutshell, is why my using whatever influence I may have (and I think you may be over-estimating it a touch) in the way you suggest is probably a bad idea. While you might agree with me on this one, you might find yourself on the other side of the fence next time. Which is ok, that's how it's supposed to work.

The industry shouldn't shift on the weight that I or any other columnist, reviewer or writer on this or any other site can throw around. It should instead change based on what all of us as players, and yes consumers, of these products actually want. Whether we vote with our wallets, or we make our voices heard as you and everyone else here have done today, the result is going to be a lot more favorable if it all doesn't come down to the whims of a single individual.

Anyway, that's a bit of a rant, but you highlighted an interesting aspect of my job and gave me the opportunity to discuss the difference between my responsibilities as a columnist (sharing my opinion and even trying to get others on board with me) and my responsibilities as Managing Editor which require me to try to keep my personal feelings out of it.

I guess the thing that bothers me the most is alot of the FDR-esque, "New Deal" ideas and sentiments expressed on this site, looking at it's listed membership total above at over 1.1 million (and even factoring in that there are duplicate accounts to a degree), that the hot button issues and the "voice of the people" expressed in such debates isn't being heard by those companies.

Now, it may be presumptuous for me to imply that they honestly care what we think and factor that in in any significant degree. They sometimes say they do, but we've as a consumer base have experienced more times than should have happened by now of where they say one thing and then do another.

Now, I'm not saying you should be our "Knight in Shining Armour" (yes, I just put a "U" in that last word and I'm from Texas- what can I say, I like the way it looks), but the question then comes how exactly are we going to get our message into those boardrooms? Telling people not to buy games just isn't going to work as there's no effective way to communicate that message on the necessary levels.

Are gamer unions in the vein of D.C lobbyists necessary and the future? Are regulatory committees other than the ESRB needed to expand into areas such as quality of software and integrity of business practices?

Candidly interested in your thoughts.

While not maybe the best thing to sell beta entries as part of a promotion, it's still extra money for the development process, which usually isn't that bad, maybe Stargate Worlds would be at a better point if it had sold beta access.

I did buy Aion in pre-order to get access to the beta's, but i was still as willing to help sort out the kinks. Because most of the changes happen anyways during beta than during the same amount of time after the launch, you get a say in the product that you actually purchased and i was happy to see that even things I complained about (well of course i wasn't only one) Aion did get changed to some degree :)

I think it's awesome you get to beta test games you pre-order, main reason being I don't buy really invest that much efford into MMORPG anymore, simple because they are pretty much repetition - but i do want something do every now and then

Originally posted by maskotti

While not maybe the best thing to sell beta entries as part of a promotion, it's still extra money for the development process, which usually isn't that bad, maybe Stargate Worlds would be at a better point if it had sold beta access.

...

Or maybe there would simply be a lot of very bitter players out there?

I seriously doubt that the revenue they could have raised from a paid beta would have helped - I am prepared to be corrected on that - my understanding is they are millions sort of where they need to be?

Oh and nicely said Khalathwyr, and well spelt as well. ;-)

Originally posted by rhinok

Along similar lines, what about F2P games that open their cash shops while they're still in beta?  One current example is Earth  Eternal, which is in open beta. Not only is it's cash shop open, but Sparkplay recently offered a discount on credits in an attempt to drum up business.  Why are they taking money during beta when the game isn't really ready for launch?  Considering that open beta characters won't be wiped, nor will items purchased for credits be revoked when the game goes "live", it seems to me that Earth Eternal is actually in a "soft launch" phase rather than a true beta.  I'm ok with that as long as they call it what it is, but it really ain't beta....

~Ripper

WOW... if that's true, that's disgusting...

Originally posted by Rhoklaw

I know one of the reasons MMO's are failing as of late and it's a big ugly. This very hard to control variable is best known as... "Community" which is a thorn in any game developers side. Cause with this huge factor comes dedicated fans, asshat gankers, annoying cheaters and gold farmers. I truely think the #1 reason MMO's are dying before they even take flight is because of the community. Cause as far as I remember, back in the days of EQ, people actually took time to enjoy the game and have fun. Now, all we have are 12 year olds with nothing better to do than grind to the level cap and pursue a life of annoying chat banter on every channel or try and cyber some random female avatar in the local inn.

Good luck finding a good MMO in today's world of immature players, cause those days are long gone.

From a 10+ year MMo vet, this is the exact reason I have said WoW was the worst thing to ever happen to MMO's. I would have rather had 1 good MMO released in last 5 years rather than the epic crap that has come out now.

No matter what, the attention and community aspects wow brung into the genre are simply not worth the money. At least not to the players.

I've been in a few of the betas and frankly I think its getting ridiculous how critical people are being of every detail in which the different companies handle everything.  Personally I think if you dont' like their marketing plan, don't play the freaking game!  Don't support a company that you dont' like, but I'll be honest, I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that although cryptic offered the $199 lifetime subs, I never thought beyond the fact hat I just plain didn't want to do that.   Did I think about how it might be a bad marketing plan?  Heck no, I'm just there to play the dang game.  We gamers ought to stick to playing the games, what we do best and stop pretending to know anything about advertising, marketing and such things unless we are the rare market professional that plays games or developer, etc..  which I'm guessing if they are out there, they are more respectful actually.  

I seem to recall another article or statement somewhere that  someone stated the more the game audience rants about the games, the easier it becomes to ignore them.   I agree with this. Why?  Because it seems to be that more and more every new game gathers more self-proclaimed critics than can be counted. 

Just my 2c.  I think both Aion and Champions are great games and that's what matters to me. 

Originally posted by Guillermo197

When you take a look at Cryptic, then you see a shift in tactics with MMO development.

CO had less then 3 years development and STO is going to be pushed out of the door with hardly 2 years of development.

It's retarded and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see the big "SCAMMY" scheme behind this.

Unless you work for a company or have a friend that works for a company, you can not say what is going on in their heads. The CO/STO Closed Beta was a raw deal; I'll admit, but they explained it as letting a few in at a time.  As mentioned in the post, they should have been more clear about the timing.  We still have almost three months of testing left before release, even more if it gets held up. Cryptic does not want to release a bad product at this point... especially after everyone has watched Funcom get eaten alive after the release of Age of Conan.

The 3 year vs 2 year dev cycle for STO:  Here is the real catch.  Cryptic has already admitted that it used the engine of Champions Online in STO, and all of the patches and enhancements since release.  The real dev time is going to be in the ship vs ship fighting and spawning new planetoids with what seems to be an auto-create option.  So we are looking at five years of development for STO, not two.  I only hope the character appearances look better than what we have seen in the released game movies.

Lastly, if anyone has been keeping up with the STO forums and announcements, you would have read that the devs and pro testers have a vested intertest in Star Trek.  Every one of them has been a fan of the franchise for years and years.  Star Trek fans can be evil when it comes to their critical reviews; Cryptic knows they have a HOT hand grenade in their hands.  They have already been receiving volumes of input from fans in regards to gaffs and errors on continuum; they have been making huge efforts to make changes to correct these continuity holes before release.  I believe that this "personal investment" in the product may see a level of quality that we may not have seen before.  If I were working for Cryptic, my family would probably be torqued at me, since I am already a workaholic.  I would get lost in what I was doing to make it a really great game. Watch the video of the tour that is available; these Trekkies and Trekkers have Star Trek memorabilia all over the office and their personal cubicles.