_____ must happen or Atlas will Die | E.A. should require applying

[boomervoncannon 1,541]

Post away but you’re missing or ignoring the point which is that EA games losing lots of players Early on is common and not an automatic indicator of failure. When multiple things which are mutually exclusive (failure/not failure) are both observed in large sample sizes when considering a single variable (declining early player numbers), it means that useful conclusions cannot be drawn simply by pointing to some potion of the sample. 

[Scorpionshawn 134]

15 hours ago, Nari said:

I agree with most of this except for the vetting and revoking of someone's access they paid for. Make your EA trial free or have mandatory vids like EA for dummies.

Game is a cash grab just like Dark and Light!

[Fopfumaster 10]

18 hours ago, mgsgta3 said:

I

tl;dr Ohhh another "Atlas is dying" prophet. Youre not getting your way, I understand.  I sympathize, truly, and If you listen closely you can hear me playing the worlds tiniest violin just for you.
There should be a vetting of players that want to play EA games, and ways to revoke that privilege. 
That would make the whole process so much better by only having people who earn the privilege and can keep it.

 If they did this than it would not be EA it would be closed beta If they can buy it then they can play it period. (unless it is against the law within the country they are in) Also if they did what you said if they revoked it from someone then they would have to refund them.

[Nari 197]

6 hours ago, Scorpionshawn said:

Game is a cash grab just like Dark and Light!

Sure it is little buddy

[Percieval 1,067]

22 hours ago, Scorpionshawn said:

Arks numbers in the first 30 days

vs Atlas numbers

I mean there is the prof right there no matter how much yall want to spin it and tell everyone its normal.

 

I always thought grown ups were supposed to be smart.

[Hodo 147]

On 1/26/2019 at 5:58 PM, Realist said:

 

Legal, but I will keep saying unethical till I am blue in the face. It is what it is, sure, but man the gaming industry is going downhill with pure laziness and bottom dollar bs 

It is business not ethics, sorry I understand this because of the job field I work in.  You can be ethical but sometimes you have to be a bit cutthroat to get the job done and stay in the black.   I try to be as honest as I can with my customers, but I will not tell them something I dont have to legally tell them or they do not ask.  This is not being dishonest, is it ethical.. depends... But is it business yes.

[mgsgta3 13]

After reading everyones responses,  I realize a few things. 
1) I may have been here to experience Early Access in its entirety I havent experienced what came before that(free closed beta that required feedback and reporting of exploits, power to revoke access, etc. Basically what I suggested) and that changes things quite a bit, perspective wise. Honestly that sounded better than E.A. because, yeah, some Developers do you use/abuse it as a cash grab. Theres countless games that Ive played that haven't left EA and likely never will. I dont see Atlas as one of those
2)I wasnt saying that people should be punished for using exploits or things like that. They shouldnt, but it should be required to report these things. That wouldnt work with EA, which is why....
3) I wasnt exactly saying I wanted it the old way of beta testing. EA is the evolution of that but even so it has its weak points too, and another iteration of the concept that is more effective and holds both ends to be more accountable(gamer and game developer) seems like a natural eventuality, no?  I personally don't mind the idea of paying to "beta test" games, because it's often like a Kickstarter or sorts, and I understand what you guys are saying: that the current model for EA it would not be acceptable to revoke access and such for a paid game.
4)If there was a new model it'd be on steam to make it happen, doing the things like changing the User Agreement before buying a game to explain the role and that beta access would be a privilege to both parties(gamer and dev) that would need to abide by conditions to maintain that role, with safeguards for both sides(ability to revoke access, inability to review a game until release but instead have a "beta progress report" page for players to maintain personal reports that they can update as often as they life,  holding on to half of the cost of an EA game as a safeguard which they would either give to the devs upon retail release or be able to use to refund 1/2 the cost to the gamers if a games EA status is revoked for one of a few reasons like it being abusive of the EA model, being a scam/cash grab, etc. This would also serve to help the dev teams have a sizeable sum for marketing upon release as well incentive to reach the point of retail release. For reference, Ark:survival Evolved had sold 9,104,000 copies by 7/6/2018. Say we be extra generous and shave off half that as sales made after release, and we will price it at 20$ per game since it was 30 in EA but went on sale a lot....Thats $188,020,000 Ark made in EA. Shave off the 30% steam pockets and thats around 125 million of it Wildcard actually made. If half of that were withheld until release or refund, and was sitting in an account gaining interest then steam would be pulling in 5.6million dollars from that one game alone at .06 interest APY. this is just a quick idea that sounds like it'd be good all around, I am sure there are much better ones to be had , and maybe thats my entire point...
That, as both a neutral observer and as a biased gamer, EA is starting to show its age. It is good, but can be and should be improved further. I hear a lot of people grumbling about losing access to the beta of a game you paid for, and I understand that, because that's the way out system is at present.  If the system was refined to be more effective and with more insulation from losses for both the gamer and developer, more efficient, more trustworthy(as far as if a game will hit retail or not), and was more like i described in point 4,  wouldnt that be way better?

 

[Nari 197]

15 minutes ago, mgsgta3 said:

After reading everyones responses,  I realize a few things. 
[...]

EA has always been intentionally vague and a risk at the consumers expense. The sooner that becomes common sense/knowledge the better.

[Hambo 34]

28 minutes ago, Nari said:

EA has always been intentionally vague and a risk at the consumers expense. The sooner that becomes common sense/knowledge the better.

"EA" wasn't at all vague 20 years ago when it was exclusively available to professional game reviewers who were paid to describe their experiences the game magazines (dead tree blogs) just prior to public release.  It often included the existing Beta Testers (already under NDA) to provide atmosphere and guidance to the reviewers, and the reviewers had to sign NDAs with substantial penalties for leaks.

The difference with today's "EA" as made possible by Steam is there are no NDAs and it's the first step in the production cycle as opposed to the last.

[Nari 197]

Just now, Hambo said:

"EA" wasn't at all vague 20 years ago when it was exclusively available to professional game reviewers who were paid to describe their experiences the game magazines (dead tree blogs) just prior to public release.  It often included the existing Beta Testers (already under NDA) to provide atmosphere and guidance to the reviewers, and the reviewers had to sign NDAs with substantial penalties for leaks.

The difference with today's "EA" as made possible by Steam is there are no NDAs and it's the first step in the production cycle as opposed to the last.

That's not EA those are professions that still exist to this day just not in the same way that they used to. Is EA flawed? Absolutely! Could it be improved? Of course... Atlas forums is not the place to fight that fight. GS is within all legal boundaries they just happen to be testing the line so to speak. Want to move that line back a bit? Bring it up with Steam.

[arzosah 84]

I think much of the confusion caused by the vagueness of EA would be resolved by calling this what it is, a persistent alpha test.  It was briefly mentioned in the last live stream, but this is still fairly early in the development process and the current players are seeing iterations that would normally be restricted to a relativity small group of players and friends/family of the developers, and would be under a strict NDA.

[Hambo 34]

20 minutes ago, arzosah said:

I think much of the confusion caused by the vagueness of EA would be resolved by calling this what it is, a persistent alpha test.  It was briefly mentioned in the last live stream, but this is still fairly early in the development process and the current players are seeing iterations that would normally be restricted to a relativity small group of players and friends/family of the developers, and would be under a strict NDA.

Exactly my point... "EA" as the first phase IS an Alpha test.  Until Steam came along the average player had no chance to get into a test program this early.  In fact, I used to have to apply and be selected to be a Beta tester.  The best Beta testers (based on bugs reported, and sometimes potential fixes) would be invited to new Alpha programs if the company had other projects coming up (I beta tested in Microsoft's program for 15 years, until it was replaced with the Insider Program, which I joined).  In the 80s and 90s (up to about 2006 IIRC) Early Access was used exactly as I stated in my post above... The last phase, intended to whip up publicity.

As time went on and the Companies started pre-selling products (usually on a deposit basis, not at full price), depositors who paid off the full price were allowed into Early Access. 

 

Edited January 29, 2019 by Hambo

[mgsgta3 13]

On 1/28/2019 at 6:20 PM, Nari said:

GS is within all legal boundaries they just happen to be testing the line so to speak.

I dont think anyone thought they were in the wrong here, legally(or i missed it). 

[Buck Rider 63]

This all could have been avoided if Atlas was made available as an open Beta.

Generally in open Betas people are very understanding of bugs and unfinished features... in Betas. But Atlas was released and sold as EA. Somewhere in recent history the meanings of the two words beta and EA were redefined to mean something new.

Yes, Atlas has taken some hits for the state of its release. Never the less, this is where we are. I think it is a good game with a lot of potential. Hopefully the way it was released will not hurt it too much in the long term.

[Caldrin 55]

Early access games always lose a ton of players in the first month.. it will settle down o just the players who actually want to help find bugs and test the game.. numbers will jump up for big patches and then go back down again.

 

I guess EA is a bit of a double edged sword.

 

On one hand it allows players so really want to help test the game get into it straight away instead of applying to be a tester and having to wait months for an invite.

 

On the other hand it does allow anyone in and no matter how many warnings you put up about early access you're always going get people who are not prepared to play games with bugs and the rage all over the internet.

Edited January 31, 2019 by Caldrin