RE: Just get it right. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

warspite1 -> RE: Just get it right. (12/17/2008 11:50:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I don't think it is a good idea to release an unfinished game, or even only a short scenario. I even think it is the worst of the worst ideas.

Some people won't know it is a non finished game, and this will ruin its reputation for when it is really finished.
I hope Matrix never agrees to do that.

MWiF should stay unpublished until it is finished.

Warspite1

I`m surprised by some of these responses - although as an "outsider looking in" maybe I am missing something and the game is further ahead in its schedule than I believe to be the case.

Previous queries and responses from Steve have confirmed that this idea would be to sell a clearly defined Gamma test game - not the finished product - and so unlike EIA for example, no one could buy the product without that caveat. It should be clear to a buyer that they purchase at their risk but that in return for continued feedback on errors/problems, Matrix will support via continuous patches and updates.

Learning from the EIA I think there are three key things that need to be addressed (by the way, none of the points below is designed in any way to disparage the efforts of Steve or the playtesters to date but rightly or wrongly, reflect my thoughts - and doubts - on the ability to get this game out in 2009, if the route decided upon is to continue on the current course). The game requires:

1. A stable, user friendly basic system where each phase does what it is supposed to do e.g. no units "disappearing" and other such bugs that make the game unplayable.
2. An at least sensible AI that presents something of a challenge - although in the first instance will be little more than a tool for learning to play the game.
3. An ability to play by Internet, PBEM or whatever.

For such a complex game, No.1 alone is frightening in its complexity and needs to be thoroughly playtested to ensure robustness - this cannot happen without serious hours being devoted to playtesting the millions of possibilities in unit set up, battles and the political events. Read the EIA forum if you doubt what can go wrong.

For the second point to be achievable, this too will take huge effort once No.1 is working properly and in my view will take the input of experienced players to identify what can/should be done given the myriad of possibilities that exist. Peter has done sterling work on the country set ups but as the old military maxim states "no plan survives contact with the enemy" and ensuring that the AI gives a decent account of itself through a whole game surely can only be developed over time?

The third point I know less about but is dependent anyway on no.1.

As I said in previous posts, I am a huge supporter of this game and Steve`s efforts to bring the final product to fruition. I hope the above is treated as simply my 2 cents based on thoughts and observations - not as some huge downer on what Matrix, Steve and the betatesters are striving to achieve. I am a betatester myself and have perhaps not devoted the time I originally hoped to the job a) because of work and family commitments and b) the time taken up with the unit write ups (rest assured you will know all you ever wanted on the RN and Commonwealth land units during WWII!!) - which are taking up much of my spare time at present - rather than de-bugging the game.

Whatever the chosen path - I will still support Steve and Matrix in getting this fine game finished.



gatsby -> RE: Just get it right. (12/18/2008 4:12:07 AM)

As a beta tester way back when on CWIF..I have been lurking here and reading the monthly updates... and I know how much time and work have gone into this already.. I would be happy to buy a "gamma" version and bug hunt....Lord I do that anyway when I buy a game most of the time..

Vassal and cyberboard allow us to play without AI..but I still would like some of the book keeping streamlined..which is what that gamma version would have.. I am one of those who are not that keen on playing the AI anyway...

So I have come out of lurk status to vote yes..where do I send my credit card no.




SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: Just get it right. (12/18/2008 4:46:26 AM)

Here is an idea....

If you do it, make sure that the opening 'splash screen' says GAMMA VERSION in BIG BIG BIG letters to remind the player that it is not finished and therefore don't complain publicly about what is wrong but rather inform the wonderful programmer so he can fix it.

(I hope you do this... but will understand if you don't) 

<joke>

(Can I 'gladhand' any harder????)

</joke>



Eichenblatt -> RE: Just get it right. (12/18/2008 11:23:03 AM)

I also agree with Froonp et al. Please do not release an early unfinished version.

/Dave



mavraamides -> RE: Just get it right. (12/18/2008 5:39:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Warspite1

I`m surprised by some of these responses - although as an "outsider looking in" maybe I am missing something and the game is further ahead in its schedule than I believe to be the case.

Previous queries and responses from Steve have confirmed that this idea would be to sell a clearly defined Gamma test game - not the finished product - and so unlike EIA for example, no one could buy the product without that caveat. It should be clear to a buyer that they purchase at their risk but that in return for continued feedback on errors/problems, Matrix will support via continuous patches and updates.

Learning from the EIA I think there are three key things that need to be addressed (by the way, none of the points below is designed in any way to disparage the efforts of Steve or the playtesters to date but rightly or wrongly, reflect my thoughts - and doubts - on the ability to get this game out in 2009, if the route decided upon is to continue on the current course). The game requires:

1. A stable, user friendly basic system where each phase does what it is supposed to do e.g. no units "disappearing" and other such bugs that make the game unplayable.
2. An at least sensible AI that presents something of a challenge - although in the first instance will be little more than a tool for learning to play the game.
3. An ability to play by Internet, PBEM or whatever.

For such a complex game, No.1 alone is frightening in its complexity and needs to be thoroughly playtested to ensure robustness - this cannot happen without serious hours being devoted to playtesting the millions of possibilities in unit set up, battles and the political events. Read the EIA forum if you doubt what can go wrong.

For the second point to be achievable, this too will take huge effort once No.1 is working properly and in my view will take the input of experienced players to identify what can/should be done given the myriad of possibilities that exist. Peter has done sterling work on the country set ups but as the old military maxim states "no plan survives contact with the enemy" and ensuring that the AI gives a decent account of itself through a whole game surely can only be developed over time?

The third point I know less about but is dependent anyway on no.1.

As I said in previous posts, I am a huge supporter of this game and Steve`s efforts to bring the final product to fruition. I hope the above is treated as simply my 2 cents based on thoughts and observations - not as some huge downer on what Matrix, Steve and the betatesters are striving to achieve. I am a betatester myself and have perhaps not devoted the time I originally hoped to the job a) because of work and family commitments and b) the time taken up with the unit write ups (rest assured you will know all you ever wanted on the RN and Commonwealth land units during WWII!!) - which are taking up much of my spare time at present - rather than de-bugging the game.

Whatever the chosen path - I will still support Steve and Matrix in getting this fine game finished.


Completely agree with everything you said.

The bottom line is a gamma version will greatly accelerate the completion and final quality of this game.


The fear of it getting a 'bad reputation' is unfounded. It assumes purchasers of a highly complex, state of the art, grand strategy game are complete morons who can't read the disclaimer staring them in the face.

This isn't Spore for God's sake. It isn't targeting the average PC gamer with the attention span of a flea. Its targeting a select group of grognards who are fully capable of making an informed decision.

I fully support the idea of a gamma release.



Froonp -> RE: Just get it right. (12/18/2008 9:33:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot
The fear of it getting a 'bad reputation' is unfounded. It assumes purchasers of a highly complex, state of the art, grand strategy game are complete morons who can't read the disclaimer staring them in the face.

You're wrong.

There will be people in non english speaking countries that will think that MWiF is finaly out, and there will be reviews in magazines, bad reviews, and the buyers will turn away thinking it is a new EiA half finished game published. No one will understand this gamma thing, games are either finished and published or not finished and not published. If it is published, it will mean it is finished, whatever disclaimer you write anywhere. Don't forget also that the people who will buy this game are in a vast majority not reading these forums, so they won't be aware of the whys and whens of why this was decided, and will assume the game is a finalized game.

I'm sure there will be reviews in France, and I'm 100% sure that it will be written in the review that this is a gamma version, but here in France it means nothing, noone will understand what a gamma version is, so people will think it is a kind of near release version. I've read reviews about games that were reviewed in near release version that assassinated the game notwhistanding any disclaimer.

You'd be surprised as how numerous the European WiF players are, so risking to confuse them is the least thing Matrix should do, especially after having done what they did to EiA. People are highly dubious about MWiF, so ANYTHING that gives them fuel for their worry is bad, because they spread their worries quicker than you spread your good word. You need 100 good word speakers for each bad word speaker, and it will be the reverse if you release that game unfinished.



JagWars -> RE: Just get it right. (12/18/2008 11:46:08 PM)

As much as I should like to a have a copy of MWIF to play around with, I beleive that Froonp is correct. No matter how you try to communicate that the game is a "gamma" version, "demo" version, "test" version, or any other caveat, the general public will view the version as a finish product and judge it accordingly. Once people plop down their money for something, their expectations increase geometrically. If the product does not at least meet their minimum standards, they will be dissatisfied and voice that dissatisfaction to all that will listen.

Secondly, trying to produce a game that matches against all of the myriad of PC configurations and brands and chipsets, is a significant if not impossible challange. Will communications back to Steve along the lines of "the game freezes on my Intel 3.3MHz P4 with 1Gb memory and a Yatzee PCIe 1x video card", cause him to have to divert time to fix this issue rather than continue to develope the game. And if he does not, will the purchaser be dissatisfied and complain that Matrix was unwilling to "fix" the game.

While I laude Steve's and everyone else's effort in attempting to produce an high quality computer representaton of WiF, I an unconvinced that it is possible to do so. The complexities of the game and the nearly limitless trees and branches that actions can follow will make any meaningful AI impossible. Regardless, one should always produce the best product they can within the monetary and time contraints provided. Releasing an unfinished product into the general marketplace will cheapen the reputation of those involved.

If the purpose of the "gamma" version is to increase the amount of beta testing and not to generate an infusion of cash, then, perhaps, if the distribution is limited to the "full-time" participants of of this forum (which would exclude those like me who actively review the forum, but do not generally contribute), then perhaps the potential for damage would be minimal. Of course that would also minimize the number of additional testors, but 100 or so additional testors is better than no additional testors.

However, I would challenge that the forum group is not the best choice for beta-testers. Most everyone in the forum has a good understanding of WiF and therefore has preconceived ideas of how the game should work. So, if the game works along those lines, they will all think it is a good product. But, if you give the game to an few hundred inexperienced WiF players, you are likely to get an entirely different outcome.




warspite1 -> RE: Just get it right. (12/19/2008 12:14:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaguar

However, I would challenge that the forum group is not the best choice for beta-testers. Most everyone in the forum has a good understanding of WiF and therefore has preconceived ideas of how the game should work. So, if the game works along those lines, they will all think it is a good product. But, if you give the game to an few hundred inexperienced WiF players, you are likely to get an entirely different outcome.


Warspite 1

Actually I do not think that is true - there are a number of beta testers with no experience of the boardgame - Steve sensibly chose a mix of WIF experience. Equally many who contribute to the forum say they have no or little experience with the game.

I think the make up of the betatesters needs to be a cross section. e.g. if you want to sort out the AI or right quality, useful tips on play for the help screens, then it is pointless having new players - you need players with years of experience. If you are testing how Joe public will be able to get into the game, the levels of help required etc, then you need more newcomers.

Nice Avatar by the way! - what`s the ship?



micheljq -> RE: Just get it right. (12/19/2008 12:31:16 AM)

Or maybe sell the gamma version only to the hardcores players willing to pay for an unfinished version and test it and give feedback. And don't sell to the public, until it is really finished. This way it lessen the risk of having a bad general feedback from the public. Just an idea, maybe not doable I don't know, I am just an outsider too, only my 2 cents.

[8|]




ezzler -> RE: Just get it right. (12/19/2008 3:06:33 AM)

I'm tired of buying Matrix games that are unplayable and so have stopped buying until at least 2 patches have been released. {Hired guns..i'm nearly ready for you, but will need 3 major by the looks of things}
The exception will be MWIF which I will take on trust as I know it will get fixed.
But a Gamma.? Bad idea.



Anendrue -> RE: Just get it right. (12/19/2008 5:01:24 AM)

I personally like the idea. I know there will be a caveat attached; but, there will still be idiots who will complain that it was released in a poor condition. That alone could affect potential sales. Whatever Matrix, ADG and Steve are willing to risk is up to them I guess.

Steve, I wish you luck no matter which way you go with this one.



JagWars -> RE: Just get it right. (12/19/2008 5:53:49 AM)

I do not know here I got the image for the Avatar. It is very similar to a painting by Richard Paton, but I believe that it is a just a computergenerated image.



undercovergeek -> RE: Just get it right. (12/19/2008 12:33:20 PM)

where does the project stand without the 'gamma' idea?

Is April still the intended date of release, does the project still go ahead without some kind of mass 'gamma test' ?

Is this an admittance of a complete realisation the project is too huge for the current team?



meisterchow -> RE: Just get it right. (12/19/2008 3:59:22 PM)

I still think a Gamma version is not a good idea, but I'm fanatic enough that if offered, I'd buy it. [X(] (That's mostly pragmatism that even if Steve took in another round of beta testers, I just don't have time right now to keep up my end of the bargain, but I'm aching to play MWiF)



mavraamides -> RE: Just get it right. (12/19/2008 3:59:35 PM)


quote:


While I laude Steve's and everyone else's effort in attempting to produce an high quality computer representaton of WiF, I an unconvinced that it is possible to do so. The complexities of the game and the nearly limitless trees and branches that actions can follow will make any meaningful AI impossible.


I disagree. I think it is not only possible, I believe Steve WILL do it.

I'm basing that on HOI II which arguably is a more complex gaming system than even WIF. I'm not saying its a great game or anything, I'm just saying its existence proves that a game this complicated with at least a playable AI is possible and can run on a normal PC.

And I think Steve can and will pull it off. I'm just not sure what the best road to get there is. The only reason I support a gamma is because I think it gets us there quicker.

But I respect the arguments of all those who oppose it as well.




SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: Just get it right. (12/19/2008 4:02:25 PM)

One last thought and I will rest my 'side' of the story.

I have not volunteered to be a beta tester because my current situation does not allow appropriate amounts of time to test effectively.  While there would be sporadic spots where I would be effective, I estimate that 3/4 of the time I would be useless to the project.  Rather than take up a testing slot I decided not to participate.

However, I would love to get my hands on it and play around with it.

I believe that there are games out now that used the pre-release purchase/beta test model.  I believe (but am not sure) that Sins of A Solar Empire is one of them.  I purchased this game soon after it was released and in reading the forums, was impressed with the quality of the game.  Certainly there were balance issues but there were not ANY major bugs that I ever encountered.

I felt at that time that this might be a great new model of how to develop computer games with a small design studio and budget.  If I ever get Real Life (TM) squared away to the point where I can follow my dream and write a computer game, that is how I would try to proceed.

I think that part of the rationale for prepay gamma testing involves not losing sales to those who play for it for a month or so and are ready to move on to something else.  Face it, for this project to be successful, it will need to have sales to a demographic that does not include fanatic Wiffers.

The real question seems to be one of reputation.  I realize that this is fairly sensitive as repuatation is so very important in game sales.  I keep thinking that signing some sort of NDA would drive home the idea that this is, in fact, an unfinished product.  On the other hand, I can see that in the final analysis, the NDA is mostly a document that outlines the expectations and as it expires upon release does not necessarily protect that reputation in the long run.

Reiterating an earlier point - adding displays of Gamma Test Version to the splash screen and perhaps at certain times during the turn should guarantee that no one forgets that this is not the real version.

Obviously, no reveiws should be based on the prerelease version.

Also, there seems to be indications that the European contingent may interpret the situation differently.  Perhaps this might indicate a smaller footprint for release? 

Finally, I don't think that someone will pay for the game simply so they can complain louder.




EUBanana -> RE: Just get it right. (12/19/2008 5:09:14 PM)

I'm torn.  On the one hand I want to play it (assuming its playable).  And it might (might) hasten its arrival if it is released in a semi-finished state.  Games have been released in the past (Star Wars Galaxies?) in a semi-finished state and done OK in the long run.  I'd buy it, even if it was buggy, so long as it was at least vaguely playable.  If it was PBEM only I'd buy it.

But on the other hand, you might find that with player support taking up dev time progress might actually be slower, and the game might bomb horribly, get a terrible reputation and therefore sink into the sump.


I would suggest it isn't even advertised, aside from a mention on the forum here.  Precisely to avoid dire reviews as much as is possible.  The real hard core who want to play it are already here, presumably releasing it in a purposefully unfinished state would be just for them anyway, so why tell anybody else.



mavraamides -> RE: Just get it right. (12/19/2008 7:50:25 PM)

What if we just called it a 'paid beta' or a 'funded beta'? No one knows WTH a 'gamma' version is anyway. Everyone understands the term beta. So paid or funded beta should be clear to anyone. IMHO.



FirstPappy -> RE: Just get it right. (12/19/2008 8:39:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot
The fear of it getting a 'bad reputation' is unfounded. It assumes purchasers of a highly complex, state of the art, grand strategy game are complete morons who can't read the disclaimer staring them in the face.

You're wrong.

There will be people in non english speaking countries that will think that MWiF is finaly out, and there will be reviews in magazines, bad reviews, and the buyers will turn away thinking it is a new EiA half finished game published. No one will understand this gamma thing, games are either finished and published or not finished and not published. If it is published, it will mean it is finished, whatever disclaimer you write anywhere. Don't forget also that the people who will buy this game are in a vast majority not reading these forums, so they won't be aware of the whys and whens of why this was decided, and will assume the game is a finalized game.

I'm sure there will be reviews in France, and I'm 100% sure that it will be written in the review that this is a gamma version, but here in France it means nothing, noone will understand what a gamma version is, so people will think it is a kind of near release version. I've read reviews about games that were reviewed in near release version that assassinated the game notwhistanding any disclaimer.

You'd be surprised as how numerous the European WiF players are, so risking to confuse them is the least thing Matrix should do, especially after having done what they did to EiA. People are highly dubious about MWiF, so ANYTHING that gives them fuel for their worry is bad, because they spread their worries quicker than you spread your good word. You need 100 good word speakers for each bad word speaker, and it will be the reverse if you release that game unfinished.



GordianKnot,
I agree with everything you said above and your other posts as well. People who buy from Matrix are a different breed. 99% of the posts you see in our community come from people who have at least half a brain and some common sense.

As for France, well ... i can't speak for them.




Sewerlobster -> RE: Just get it right. (12/19/2008 9:36:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot
What if we just called it a 'paid beta' or a 'funded beta'? No one knows WTH a 'gamma' version is anyway. Everyone understands the term beta. So paid or funded beta should be clear to anyone. IMHO.


Yes, that's what I originally what I meant with 'gamma'. I'm saying there's a group of people, such as me, who would make a lousy beta tester because I couldn't dedicate the proper time and input to help with core development; but would be willing to pay for an unfinished version to test out for Steve. Every bug these gamma (paying beta) testers find would just be polish on the product. Even a two week run could be useful.

Then again, I can wait with the best of them. If it's offered, I'm in. If not okay. It's really interesting to see how people have reacted so differently to this idea.



brian brian -> RE: Just get it right. (12/20/2008 4:03:20 AM)

I thought reviewers would only review games given to them free?



Gravit -> RE: Just get it right. (12/20/2008 6:16:57 AM)

If Matrix needs more playtesters then by all means put out a playtest recruitment thread and charge everyone the cost of the game to playtest and allow them to download the files privately.  If more playtesters are needed and there are folks willing to pay to playtest then great, work out a side deal and let them in. I was suckered into EIA by purchasing it before I dove through all the threads thinking that neither ADB nor Matrix would ever steer me wrong.  I was wrong and remain quite disappointed in ADB for allowing this to occur.



Froonp -> RE: Just get it right. (12/20/2008 8:38:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gravit

If Matrix needs more playtesters then by all means put out a playtest recruitment thread and charge everyone the cost of the game to playtest and allow them to download the files privately.  If more playtesters are needed and there are folks willing to pay to playtest then great, work out a side deal and let them in. I was suckered into EIA by purchasing it before I dove through all the threads thinking that neither ADB nor Matrix would ever steer me wrong.  I was wrong and remain quite disappointed in ADB for allowing this to occur.

I believe that ADG has nothing to do with the release of EiA. They were not asked their authorisation this is all a Matrix Games decision.



powell30 -> RE: Just get it right. (12/20/2008 4:31:06 PM)

I think it would be an excellent idea providing caveats are applied. Signed up to privacy policy, private downlaoded area and private issues/bugs posting area. On that basis i would pay to 'pre purchase' the game and post back feed back/issues. Others on here have detailed other conditions that must also apply. I understand Froops and others issues but if the purchase and downloads are kept as 'beta' sales i see no issues only plus points



brian brian -> RE: Just get it right. (12/20/2008 11:23:34 PM)

yeah, go with the regular NDA the regular beta-testers already sign up for. I am not a fan at all of the NDA for the paper game, and not even all that much for the computer game, since I have never understood the point of it beyond Harry wants it that way. It's not like we are testing a new hydrogen-cold-fusion-free-energy-car-of-the-future or something, or there is someone out there hovering on the horizon trying to steal the bounce combat system for their WWII wargame. But I'm not trying to open that issue, it is how it is. I would buy and sign immediately if I could. I think I could play through about half of one game this winter, not sure if I would be a huge help finding bugs, but I would love to help any way I could.



Michael the Pole -> RE: Just get it right. (12/21/2008 5:15:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

yeah, go with the regular NDA the regular beta-testers already sign up for. I am not a fan at all of the NDA for the paper game, and not even all that much for the computer game, since I have never understood the point of it beyond Harry wants it that way. It's not like we are testing a new hydrogen-cold-fusion-free-energy-car-of-the-future or something, or there is someone out there hovering on the horizon trying to steal the bounce combat system for their WWII wargame. But I'm not trying to open that issue, it is how it is. I would buy and sign immediately if I could. I think I could play through about half of one game this winter, not sure if I would be a huge help finding bugs, but I would love to help any way I could.


Agree completely...a NDA at this level is perhaps one degree more useful than a screen door on an exterior hatch on a klingon battlecruiser (I invite examination of my profile, if you wonder about my bona fides.)
As for the French (the only people in history who have managed to lose a civil war), going into any serious endeavor without the support of the French is like going hunting without your accordion.
I say launch now, with a large font warning page that the gameis unfinished.



Zap -> RE: Just get it right. (12/21/2008 6:12:32 AM)

For Europeans You could always put the disclaimer/advisory in the various languages to be assured of less confusion. That is, of course if they can read their own language



Zenra -> RE: Just get it right. (12/22/2008 8:23:58 PM)

I am torn as well - both sides of this discussion make good points, but having said that I must be honest and admit that I would immediately and gladly pay for a "gamma" version as soon as it is made available... [8|]



bredsjomagnus -> RE: Just get it right. (12/22/2008 10:57:06 PM)

quote:

That is, of course if they can read their own language


Öhhh. Nä, vi bor alla i grottor och har mycket svårt att läsa och skriva?



Grapeshot Bob -> RE: Just get it right. (12/22/2008 11:38:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana
I'm torn.  On the one hand I want to play it (assuming its playable).  And it might (might) hasten its arrival if it is released in a semi-finished state.  Games have been released in the past (Star Wars Galaxies?) in a semi-finished state and done OK in the long run.  I'd buy it, even if it was buggy, so long as it was at least vaguely playable.  If it was PBEM only I'd buy it.



If you would like to see the effect of such reasoning please head over to the Empires in Arms Forum.

The people who bought that little gem are roughly divided between the hard-core grognards who begged to have the game released "Just so they could play PBEM" and the general gaming public who want the developers drawn and quartered. In case you are wondering, I'm one of the latter group.

You could warm your house for a year with all the heat in that forum.

I blew over $60 to be what is basically a beta tester. It's been a year and the game is still quite buggy.

Not happy.



GSB



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375