Trending Games | ArcheAge | World of Warcraft | Destiny | Guild Wars 2

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,860,264 Users Online:0
Games:742  Posts:6,246,348
Goblinworks | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Development  (est.rel N/A)  | Pub:Paizo Publishing
PVP:Yes | Distribution: | Retail Price:n/a | Monthly Fee:n/a
System Req: PC Mac | Out of date info? Let us know!

Pathfinder Online Forum » General Discussion » $1,000 Alpha Access

6 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 » Search
114 posts found
  MumboJumbo

Elite Member

Joined: 7/18/10
Posts: 3178

Veni, Vidi, Converti

6/28/14 7:03:17 AM#41
Originally posted by Slapshot1188
To me, what is more concerning is their plan to star charging monthly sub fees for the next phase of testing as well as not wiping once that starts.

There's a distinction:

This is alpha which is testing the game in the traditional QA process.

The skip of beta is for players to play and actually progress the game and their characters and groups. The skill-training is real-time cumulative as per EVE so money into the game is stored value.

The reasons are:

1. Small game for very keen players

2. MVP for faster development cycle

3. Sandbox means the player-driven systems need to work with the developers before a major release to all/any.

I think it's very sound. There will be various performance issues and revisions, but players don't lose progress, I still think if the game has a great design then poorer graphics and polish and sometimes performance are price I'm comfortable to put up with. I'm not convinced by the VR tech as silver bullet for the virtual world future to compare spending a lot of money on future tech to progress the genre. I think design is still the most important factor. UO had a great design, but 3D came out and we got EQ/WOW... !

=

That said I don't agree with the price of alpha other than a barrier to entry and the fact there are people who will purchase it. There some rewards that offset the cost downwards to about 600$ (cumulative rewards at least in the ks) but for that money I'd expect a much wider gameplay experience such as the "Monster Cast" and being able to interact with the game in a wider way than the average customer (wider not more powerful).

  Slapshot1188

Elite Member

Joined: 5/06/07
Posts: 4158

6/28/14 10:26:06 AM#42

I still stand by my belief that they are making a HUGE mistake to charge anyone a sub fee after just a few weeks of (as seen last night) very rough Alpha testing.  If they really test the game for 6-12+ months and then want to discuss it as an early access I'll listen. Right now the whole concept of "not wiping" so early in a game's development sounds ludicrous!

 

Right now their website is selling month 2 early entry for August.  That means July for month one.  That seems crazy to me.  Maybe they won't start charging a sub till 2015.  Hope that's the case...

 

 

 

"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  fodell54

Novice Member

Joined: 5/13/08
Posts: 321

Swift as the windQuiet as the forestConquer like the fireSteady as the mountain-Sun Tzu

6/28/14 10:39:02 AM#43
Originally posted by Wighty
Originally posted by MightyUnclean
If I was a multi-millionaire, I'd like to think that I'd still have the sense not to spend $1,000 for an alpha.  I'd rather give it to a charity.

Now that's a piss poor waste of money when you look at how much of your charitable donations go toward the administration and how little goes to support the actual cause...

 

At least it's a write off, which if you are a wealthy person is the only perk.

Wow! I never thought I would see someone put that giving to charity is a piss poor waste of money. Word can't even describe what type of person you are. That is a pretty prick thing to say no matter how you look at it. 

  Kangaroomouse

Hard Core Member

Joined: 4/15/14
Posts: 318

6/28/14 11:32:00 AM#44

$1000 for this: 

http://www.twitch.tv/dakcenturi/c/4547414

Best part: The Health/Mana UI that is stuck to the characters ass and even bounces up and down while he moves. Are these people serious?

----

Those running animations... I have not laughed that hard at a game in a long time. This is so bad it needs it's own category.

  MumboJumbo

Elite Member

Joined: 7/18/10
Posts: 3178

Veni, Vidi, Converti

6/28/14 12:13:08 PM#45
Originally posted by Slapshot1188

I still stand by my belief that they are making a HUGE mistake to charge anyone a sub fee after just a few weeks of (as seen last night) very rough Alpha testing.  If they really test the game for 6-12+ months and then want to discuss it as an early access I'll listen. Right now the whole concept of "not wiping" so early in a game's development sounds ludicrous!

Right now their website is selling month 2 early entry for August.  That means July for month one.  That seems crazy to me.  Maybe they won't start charging a sub till 2015.  Hope that's the case...

There's something in what you say. I think they will revise things significantly - the only that is not open to revision is progression, and bear in mind that's character skill-training and what groups themselves have secured will have to factor in somehow eg the infrastructure for skill-training in settlements and other such territorial claims. So if you are not up for that then it is self-selecting according to one's tolerance vs one's "buy-in". The more it gets polished during EE and more player-content and dev systems implemented the more attractive that equation probably becomes to more people.

EE is very important from the business perspective to reach revenue generation as fast as possible. The sweetener is the crowdforging of the players during the process to develop systems eg prioritize and feedback and maybe more?

  Wighty

Advanced Member

Joined: 1/10/08
Posts: 586

6/28/14 7:31:52 PM#46
Originally posted by fodell54
Originally posted by Wighty
Originally posted by MightyUnclean
If I was a multi-millionaire, I'd like to think that I'd still have the sense not to spend $1,000 for an alpha.  I'd rather give it to a charity.

Now that's a piss poor waste of money when you look at how much of your charitable donations go toward the administration and how little goes to support the actual cause...

 

At least it's a write off, which if you are a wealthy person is the only perk.

Wow! I never thought I would see someone put that giving to charity is a piss poor waste of money. Word can't even describe what type of person you are. That is a pretty prick thing to say no matter how you look at it. 

And I'm the prick,


http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/us/worst-charities/

 

Educate yourself before you make ridiculous statements... Most charities are just means of tax shelters for the wealthy... When was the last time you ever heard about anything getting cured, or helped...

 

There is a myriad of ways to help people without shelling out money to corrupt organizations.

What are your other Hobbies?

Gaming is Dirt Cheap compared to this...

  Asm0deus

Elite Member

Joined: 9/06/10
Posts: 845

6/28/14 7:36:57 PM#47
Originally posted by Wighty
Originally posted by MightyUnclean
Originally posted by Wighty
Originally posted by MightyUnclean

 

Not all gamers are broke college kids.

You're right, there is apparently no shortage players with more money than sense.

To DM's point again... Some people have tons of cash to spend on hobbies... Some collect vintage Ferrari's some play games... Why can't you comprehend that for some people spending hundreds or thousands on their hobby is somehow wrong?

 

I don't think it's wrong, just foolish.

Why? Because you personally can't fathom it?

 

Some people feel more passionately about preserving something they enjoy to the tune of contributing more money at a given project, because they are hoping to see it succeed, this is the beauty of the crowdfunding model.

 

You are just spinning the whole thing as a negative because at that tier level of $1000+ it includes alpha... maybe your pissed off because you want to try the game but can't pony up the coin, and are upset because others have access to an opportunity you don't have.

 

What are the other benefits offered at that tier? there are plenty...

 

In truth alpha's generally suck... you don't want to be a part of them... They are so rough and unpolished that you would have to be someone very dedicated to actually want to trudge though the bugs to actively help a project which for them is people who feel strongly enough to pledge $1000+... If it were open to anyone, the forums would be full of people trashing the prject because it is unfinished.

 

I myself have supported many kickstarters and alpha/beta founders packs some albeit regretfully, and never to the tune of $1000 (maybe $200 tops) but wither way it is a part of my budget that for me is disposable income that I can afford to spend. Doesn't make me a fool, because this is something I can afford within my income level.

 The big problem with arguing about this is that none of us know if the people spending 1k$+ on this is "rich" or not.  I watched a 24 year old last night play from his room in his mom and dad home and there is no way in hell anyone here is going to convince me his 1000$ to play in alpha wasn't a foolish purchase.

It all depends on where you are coming from and your perspective I would say.  You can't really argue about it either way as it really depends on your situation which can have a drastic impact on your priorities.

Myself I wasn't impressed with the game at all, it looked like something from 2005.

case: Coolermaster HAF932
PSU: Antec EA 750watt
RAM: 2x2g G-SKILL DDR3-1600mhz 9-9-9-24
Mb:Gigabyte GA-P55-UD4P
CPU: i5-750 @4ghz
GPU: gtx msi N760 TF 2GD5/OC
cooling: Noctua NH-D14
storage: seagate 600 240GB SSD, 500GB x7200rpm HDD

  Kuviski

Advanced Member

Joined: 11/13/12
Posts: 175

6/30/14 5:01:16 AM#48

I'll go ahead and admit that not only is the price-tag ridiculous, charging the testers for testing a game, which is something that should ultimately help the developer and not the player, is really crafty.

But unfortunately payed betas are becoming the norm even in the AAA-world, and with that and the low interest in special concepts like Pathfinder, I understand getting money to actually develop the game would be very difficult any other way.

Still, I am not going to change my opinion on the fact that having to pay for what is ultimately helping the developer is a horrible concept.

  Caldicot

Advanced Member

Joined: 7/10/07
Posts: 395

Hobbes was right, Rousseau was wrong.

6/30/14 6:26:16 AM#49
Originally posted by Kuviski

I'll go ahead and admit that not only is the price-tag ridiculous, charging the testers for testing a game, which is something that should ultimately help the developer and not the player, is really crafty.

But unfortunately payed betas are becoming the norm even in the AAA-world, and with that and the low interest in special concepts like Pathfinder, I understand getting money to actually develop the game would be very difficult any other way.

Still, I am not going to change my opinion on the fact that having to pay for what is ultimately helping the developer is a horrible concept.

An argument in favor of paid testing is that devs are more likely to get testers who are more commited to helping out than testers who are picked out randomly from a large pool of registered people, whose interest in the game probably will vary quite alot. 

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. - Carl Sagan

  Kuviski

Advanced Member

Joined: 11/13/12
Posts: 175

6/30/14 6:34:32 AM#50
Originally posted by Caldicot
Originally posted by Kuviski

I'll go ahead and admit that not only is the price-tag ridiculous, charging the testers for testing a game, which is something that should ultimately help the developer and not the player, is really crafty.

But unfortunately payed betas are becoming the norm even in the AAA-world, and with that and the low interest in special concepts like Pathfinder, I understand getting money to actually develop the game would be very difficult any other way.

Still, I am not going to change my opinion on the fact that having to pay for what is ultimately helping the developer is a horrible concept.

An argument in favor of paid testing is that devs are more likely to get testers who are more commited to helping out than testers who are picked out randomly from a large pool of registered people, whose interest in the game probably will vary quite alot. 

I'm sure you're right, I think there's no arguing about the model attracting some pretty devoted individuals. It does, however, also attract people who aren't there to report bugs but rather to find them and keep them to themselves to exploit them later on. You know, the most hardcore competitive type, seeing as they're willing to even pay for it.

Anyways, this all leads to the fact I am kind of annoyed by the inflation of the words beta and alpha in the past few years. In Pathfinder's case the testing phase does actually look like a legit testing phase I'll admit though, even if it is done through the paid access model. For most games nowadays though, the word beta, and to a lesser extent, alpha, have come to mean something along the lines of "pre-release advertising campaign".

  Slapshot1188

Elite Member

Joined: 5/06/07
Posts: 4158

6/30/14 6:04:31 PM#51
Originally posted by Caldicot
Originally posted by Kuviski

I'll go ahead and admit that not only is the price-tag ridiculous, charging the testers for testing a game, which is something that should ultimately help the developer and not the player, is really crafty.

But unfortunately payed betas are becoming the norm even in the AAA-world, and with that and the low interest in special concepts like Pathfinder, I understand getting money to actually develop the game would be very difficult any other way.

Still, I am not going to change my opinion on the fact that having to pay for what is ultimately helping the developer is a horrible concept.

An argument in favor of paid testing is that devs are more likely to get testers who are more commited to helping out than testers who are picked out randomly from a large pool of registered people, whose interest in the game probably will vary quite alot. 

One could also argue that by charging a monthly fee, players will be more focused on not testing but rather enjoying the game they are paying a sub for.  One could also make the case that this could be further enforced by the "no-wipe" situation.  Players will be incentivized to maximize their character's abilities and fortunes.

 

Edit: Actually the more I think on it, the more I think that this setup very strongly encourages people NOT to test.  With no wipe people will not be trying different skill combinations, they will not try outlandish ideas which might hurt their character permanently.  This is NOT going to result in a well tested game IMHO.

 

 

"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  Viper482

Elite Member

Joined: 11/04/10
Posts: 335

7/04/14 10:18:45 AM#52
Originally posted by Dauntis

The $1,000 is pretty reasonable when you consider it covers the cost of time travel to return to a time when these graphics and animations would be considered good.

 

Dude.....most awesome post I have seen in a while lol. Well done.

  threefeet

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/30/14
Posts: 142

7/04/14 10:23:10 AM#53
i'd rather take that $1k, go buy several sheets of acid and trip for months on end staring at the EQ2 account i havent used for 2yrs.

  Apraxis

Elite Member

Joined: 9/28/05
Posts: 1471

7/10/14 7:00:05 AM#54
Originally posted by Slapshot1188
Originally posted by Caldicot
Originally posted by Kuviski

I'll go ahead and admit that not only is the price-tag ridiculous, charging the testers for testing a game, which is something that should ultimately help the developer and not the player, is really crafty.

But unfortunately payed betas are becoming the norm even in the AAA-world, and with that and the low interest in special concepts like Pathfinder, I understand getting money to actually develop the game would be very difficult any other way.

Still, I am not going to change my opinion on the fact that having to pay for what is ultimately helping the developer is a horrible concept.

An argument in favor of paid testing is that devs are more likely to get testers who are more commited to helping out than testers who are picked out randomly from a large pool of registered people, whose interest in the game probably will vary quite alot. 

One could also argue that by charging a monthly fee, players will be more focused on not testing but rather enjoying the game they are paying a sub for.  One could also make the case that this could be further enforced by the "no-wipe" situation.  Players will be incentivized to maximize their character's abilities and fortunes.

 

Edit: Actually the more I think on it, the more I think that this setup very strongly encourages people NOT to test.  With no wipe people will not be trying different skill combinations, they will not try outlandish ideas which might hurt their character permanently.  This is NOT going to result in a well tested game IMHO.

So you actually think that a player will test anything in any Beta Test? No. Noone does. therefore you actually do have paid beta testers in your company.. but they will do actually what you have said.. play the game, test different builds, exploit the system.. and withit testing the game, too. But differently.

I personally don't know, if it is very clever to ask for a subscription that early on.. however i do understand why they want to start the game(without reseting the world), because the players, clans build up the game with settlements and all that stuff, and creating the first infrastructure.

About the 1000$ price tag. It is crowd funding... you donate your money that that game gets developed... If you only want to play that game(and help crowd funding it a little bit) 35$ is enough(and available even now).. If you desperately want to play that game as soon as possible(in a buggy and unfinished aplha/beta state), without to care about anything else.. 100$ is still enough. (Source: https://goblinworks.com/shop/)

And as always with kickstarter or crowd funding in general.. if you are not interested in spending money.. don't do it.. noone is forcing you.

Do i understand why companies do that? Of course.. when a lot of people are more interested in playing any alpha/beta instead of a finished game, and a willingly to pay a lot more for that exclusive access, companies will offer it. It is called supply and demand. I usually don't care about alphas or betas.. maybe, because i worked as beta tester(and got paid for it) and therefore i just wait until it is finished and released.. though i do kickstart(with basic package) some projects, but usually don't play the beta(maybe a first look, but usually not more).

And would i consider someone spending 1000$ just for playing a alpha without having that money as disposable a fool? 100% Yeap.. but the world is full of fools. When there is one thing the humanity never got a shortcoming it was the huge amount of fools.

 

Edit: Most of those playing now payed 100$ during the kickstarter for donating and crowd funding the game.. additionally the got 3 month subscription for that 100$. (Source: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1675907842/pathfinder-online-a-fantasy-sandbox-mmo) Would i consider worth it? Well.. it highly depends if your are interested in the concept of that game, and the vision of how it should evolve, or not.

Edit 2: And those 1000$ donated only 36 people... and who knows how many of that were friends&family of the developers. So it was never seen as players actually testing anything. Just some perk you could add to the 1000$ donation. You have to give something. So i don't expect that a lot of people actually ruined themself for pledging that much. But yeah... at least it is a nice headline "1000$ Alpha Access", especially after Landmark and ArcheAge Pioneer packages... even if it does not hold up a lot.

Edit3: And furthermore i could ask how many of you paid 1000$+ for World of Warcraft over the years, and how foolish you feel about that....

  Slapshot1188

Elite Member

Joined: 5/06/07
Posts: 4158

7/24/14 7:28:46 PM#55
Originally posted by Apraxis
 

Edit: Most of those playing now payed 100$ during the kickstarter for donating and crowd funding the game.. additionally the got 3 month subscription for that 100$. (Source: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1675907842/pathfinder-online-a-fantasy-sandbox-mmo) Would i consider worth it? Well.. it highly depends if your are interested in the concept of that game, and the vision of how it should evolve, or not.

Edit 2: And those 1000$ donated only 36 people... and who knows how many of that were friends&family of the developers. So it was never seen as players actually testing anything. Just some perk you could add to the 1000$ donation. You have to give something. So i don't expect that a lot of people actually ruined themself for pledging that much. But yeah... at least it is a nice headline "1000$ Alpha Access", especially after Landmark and ArcheAge Pioneer packages... even if it does not hold up a lot.

Edit3: And furthermore i could ask how many of you paid 1000$+ for World of Warcraft over the years, and how foolish you feel about that....

1. No... the $100 donors are not "playing now".

 

2. As they plan to start charging people a sub after Alpha.. I really hope it is seen as "testing something" or the Early Entry will be a disaster.

 

3. Can't say I would endorse paying $1000 to play WoW either...

 

"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  Robokapp

Elite Member

Joined: 11/15/09
Posts: 4678

The only luck I had today was to have you as my opponent.

7/24/14 7:30:35 PM#56

do we call this a MICROtransaction?

 

  FelixMajor

Advanced Member

Joined: 12/27/07
Posts: 547

7/24/14 7:38:51 PM#57

It was just over a year now that I gave them a $100 pledge, and it was just a month ago I revoked it.

 

These guys are feckin delusional.

Originally posted by Arskaaa
"when players learned tacticks in dungeon/raids, its bread".

  User Deleted
7/24/14 7:42:04 PM#58
I don't know if I would play this game for free let alone to pay for it. I maybe would play it if they payed me.
  seafirex

Elite Member

Joined: 12/08/06
Posts: 278

7/24/14 7:54:42 PM#59

Ok for alpha the OP is right to say to get access to alpha you need to have made a donation of 1000$ + but you also get so much things it is omg good for the price..

Beta starts at something like 100$ you also get like 1 months free sub + other things also.

But again who wants a players in a alpha build ? answer : none except those who are money hungry. A player can not contribute to a alpha release even a beta is pushing it. The only thing they do is play, learn the mecanics, request change for themself and there friends and screw up the game for all others before release.

 

here is the alpha info the OP never mention :

Pledge Limited (163 left of 200)<p h5="" mb2="" break-word"="">

Crowdforger Alpha - Patrons at this level get all the Crowdforger Pioneer rewards including a digital downloadable copy of the Pathfinder Online MMO and an invite to become an Early Enrollee in the Beta, a three-month game subscription, a New Player Pack of consumables, and a Pathfinder Alliance Pack. You will be welcomed as part of a very small group of alpha playtesters in a closed Alpha of Pathfinder Online. This will be a great chance for you to give us direct input on how Pathfinder Online ends up looking and playing in its final incarnation. Once we hit the Beta, you will be invited to play from the first month onward.

 

  Foobarx

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/16/14
Posts: 459

7/24/14 8:03:50 PM#60

I sincerely doubt you'll end up playing it long enough to justify the $1000 investment.  You could buy 16 games at $60 a pop for that and probably still outplay this game just playing 30 days in each that you buy.  You could sub to WoW for 66 months for that price... that's 5 and a half years of WoW. 

 

NO GAME IS WORTH $1000.  NO GAME.

 

 

6 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 » Search