Jump to content

mgsgta3

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

Recommended Posts

I see so many posts about "if this doesnt happen, this game is dead!" or "this games dying because of this thing!".... and This is like Deja Vu.  Did you guys not learn when you said the same thing about Ark every update and had a 0 batting average by the end of it? You CANNOT will things to happen just because you say it will.

Early Access. It's a great concept ruined by peoples lack of ability to comprehend and act/react accordingly to what those two words mean. The game is not dead, nor dying. It's not even born yet, It's not even through its first trimester. In one month it has grown and changed significantly,  and in another month it will have changed and grown quite a bit. Sometimes you will hate the changes, sometimes you will like them. It will change regardless, and in 2 years~ when it releases it will be almost nothing like it is now in most regards. How do those changes take place? Through trial and error, trying risky ideas or sometimes even implementing things that are disliked across the board but necessary(flyer nerf in Ark). When you took your mothers credit card and bought this game you made an agreement that you understood that this game is in its earliest stages, that things will change, and bugs will happen a lot. So stop decrying the game to be dead every damn update. lol Use your words like big boys and give insightful, mature, and constructive feedback to the devs. Effective information that they can actually use. When you berate the devs and are little prophets of hate and doom you know what you'll get? Devs that wont communicate with the community less than they do now. Look at Ark.  If you're such a prodigy of game development then why are you armchair coaching and not making a better Atlas?...Ah, that's what I thought.
It's sad because A lot of those people who left bad reviews are still plugging away hours each day, and post negative and useless information to the devs, and all I can think is that there should be an application process for playing EA games, 

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.

  • Like 5
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Nari
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is true. If it were in the agreement though and made it very clear that it's a privliege that must be maintained(within reason, devs revoking for mere criticism  would need its own consequences-like theyd have their own agreement to uphold to have their game in E.A.), then that would be on the player to act accordingly. Plus theyd still have the game if E.A was revoked, as it could just lock from further updates and online access until its retail release or something.(and they still get it cheaper than retail so still somewhat of a win for them)

A 3 strike rule would be ideal for that 

Edited by mgsgta3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all moot when they ask for money for the "privelage". Its no longer a privilege if you're giving them money.  Now theres an expectation because of the money given.

You cant revoke something you paid for unless you're breaking the rules.. for example hacking or exploiting.  Unless the rules(aka contract) indicated explicitly that you MUST be positive, informative, helpful, and not negative during the entire EA period.  And honestly that will never fly.

Choosing to use the Early Access method to make money off of its alpha testers(versus the alternative method of actually paying out money to have your game tested) comes with downsides and mainly its setting people's expectations pretty high.  Its supposed to still be playable.   Alpha testers that are paid do not have that expectation. Typical alpha testers get compensated one way or another so it's a job for them.  Early access buyers expect to have something fun to play while things get fleshed out. 

Edited by Dorf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Dorf said:

It's all moot when they ask for money for the "privelage". Its no longer a privilege if you're giving them money.  Now theres an expectation because of the money given.

Yep. Doesn't matter what your interpretation of EA is if you feel that you are owed a product/service for the exchange of your currency instead of say buying a backstage pass then that's the core problem. Your perspective. 

Let's try putting this in another context shall we? Would you pay to read an unfinished novel? Or stand on set of a movie in production? Because that's what this is essentially. You're not buying a game you're buying access to the unfinished current state of the production. With the promise of getting the updated and complete game upon release. Community involvement is not an obligation its a benefit to both parties.

Edited by Nari
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Dorf said:

It's all moot when they ask for money for the "privelage". Its no longer a privilege if you're giving them money.  Now theres an expectation because of the money given.

You cant revoke something you paid for unless you're breaking the rules.. for example hacking or exploiting.  Unless the rules(aka contract) indicated explicitly that you MUST be positive, informative, helpful, and not negative during the entire EA period.  And honestly that will never fly.

Choosing to use the Early Access method to make money off of its alpha testers(versus the alternative method of actually paying out money to have your game tested) comes with downsides and mainly its setting people's expectations pretty high.  Its supposed to still be playable.   Alpha testers that are paid do not have that expectation. Typical alpha testers get compensated one way or another so it's a job for them.  Early access buyers expect to have something fun to play while things get fleshed out. 

I don't mean they have to be positive, or kiss ass or  even be nice.  Just able to give  effective feedback and refrain from the useless/unhelpful and often toxic feedback, or give no feedback. 

Another thing to add: reviewing shouldnt be allowed for a certain time frame, or until release too. Being able to review a game while its in EA means they can review bomb to get their way, like blackmail pretty much, or review poorly for lack of understanding what they bought

Edited by mgsgta3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mgsgta3 said:

I see so many posts about "if this doesnt happen, this game is dead!" or "this games dying because of this thing!".... and This is like Deja Vu.  Did you guys not learn when you said the same thing about Ark every update and had a 0 batting average by the end of it? You CANNOT will things to happen just because you say it will.
 

This has been going on way longer than Ark, actually since the dawn of online gaming. "This patch is going to kill the game, you do that it'll kill the game, the game is dying ect. Hell they have been saying that about pretty much every game i've ever played online since 1995 and  it isn't going to change. (Well hell may possibly freeze over but don't hold your breath)

These games in this state use to be invite or sign up only. Now your trying to pick and choose who can post about a game they purchased? Don't get me wrong I know where your coming from but the day developers start saying you can not do this or that after paying money  (exploits ect excluded) is the day I tell that dev to go to (the non freezing place) and never buy anything from them again.

 

Edited by Dags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mgsgta3 said:

I see so many posts about "if this doesnt happen, this game is dead!" or "this games dying because of this thing!".... and This is like Deja Vu.  Did you guys not learn when you said the same thing about Ark every update and had a 0 batting average by the end of it? You CANNOT will things to happen just because you say it will.

Early Access. It's a great concept ruined by peoples lack of ability to comprehend and act/react accordingly to what those two words mean. The game is not dead, nor dying. It's not even born yet, It's not even through its first trimester. In one month it has grown and changed significantly,  and in another month it will have changed and grown quite a bit. Sometimes you will hate the changes, sometimes you will like them. It will change regardless, and in 2 years~ when it releases it will be almost nothing like it is now in most regards. How do those changes take place? Through trial and error, trying risky ideas or sometimes even implementing things that are disliked across the board but necessary(flyer nerf in Ark). When you took your mothers credit card and bought this game you made an agreement that you understood that this game is in its earliest stages, that things will change, and bugs will happen a lot. So stop decrying the game to be dead every damn update. lol Use your words like big boys and give insightful, mature, and constructive feedback to the devs. Effective information that they can actually use. When you berate the devs and are little prophets of hate and doom you know what you'll get? Devs that wont communicate with the community less than they do now. Look at Ark.  If you're such a prodigy of game development then why are you armchair coaching and not making a better Atlas?...Ah, that's what I thought.
It's sad because A lot of those people who left bad reviews are still plugging away hours each day, and post negative and useless information to the devs, and all I can think is that there should be an application process for playing EA games, 

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.

Those days are gone... they were called Alpha Testing, and Closed Beta Testers... You used to have to sign a NDA to participate and submit a tester resume.   If you violated any terms of the testing you could be removed and replaced.  

This is Early Access which is a "legal" way for game companies to charge for the game before it is released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

Wow I actually agreed with and liked your comment. Hell just froze over. I feel a little dirty right now, but in all honesty sometimes is feels good to feel a little dirty. 👍

6 minutes ago, Hodo said:

Those days are gone... they were called Alpha Testing, and Closed Beta Testers... You used to have to sign a NDA to participate and submit a tester resume.   If you violated any terms of the testing you could be removed and replaced.  

This is Early Access which is a "legal" way for game companies to charge for the game before it is released.

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 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Realist said:

Wow I actually agreed with and liked your comment. Hell just froze over. I feel a little dirty right now, but in all honesty sometimes is feels good to feel a little dirty. 👍

Hey man, I may not like you but you do make some valid points too from time to time. Perhaps through discussion we can close this gap and become BFF's 😆

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nari said:

Hey man, I may not like you but you do make some valid points too from time to time. Perhaps through discussion we can close this gap and become BFF's 😆

 

5 minutes ago, Realist said:

Wow I actually agreed with and liked your comment. Hell just froze over. I feel a little dirty right now, but in all honesty sometimes is feels good to feel a little dirty.

Get a room!!!

:classic_biggrin:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arks numbers in the first 30 days

1645921923_arkup.jpg.be5e31e408c5c1a59b362352651a364d.jpg

vs Atlas numbers

621038815_ATLASDOWN.jpg.ddbf10d2204fc693ad8b893626a2133f.jpg

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Scorpionshawn said:

Arks numbers in the first 30 days

1645921923_arkup.jpg.be5e31e408c5c1a59b362352651a364d.jpg

vs Atlas numbers

621038815_ATLASDOWN.jpg.ddbf10d2204fc693ad8b893626a2133f.jpg

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

 

I have been saying that the numbers don't lie and Atlas is clearly losing players.

 

 

And the current gameplay dosen't work for new players, no reason for them to buy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Nari said:

Hey man, I may not like you but you do make some valid points too from time to time. Perhaps through discussion we can close this gap and become BFF's 😆

To be honest we actually might. This happened on the ark forums as well. “Some” people I thought I was just a troll and then they saw something different.i have no problem disagreeing with people and my mind never changes, but I do like it when I can find someone I usually argue with and find a common ground.

that shit is game changing right there.

we could all be a very dangerous asset to wildcard if we wanted to be. Just need to find the common ground first.

then after that, the stuff we disagree on, we just agree not hinder the process. We have all stifled each other at some point really

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Dorf said:

 

Get a room!!!

:classic_biggrin:

Yeah no 💩 huh? 

Talk about opposites attract. 

Dont worry man, I am still on team anti wildcard. I don’t like his ass either, but it does get pretty interesting when common ground comes into play. Almost intriguing to be honest. It’s like ok, let’s see how far we can get this ground going lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mgsgta3 said:

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.

3

In the good'old days this was true, companies provided FREE access to beta testers to test their games but with the agreement that you were required to provide useful feedback about the game and your experience and they could remove you from the team at any time and for any reason. Those days are gone now and the traditional model has shifted for some reason as developers charge now for players to beta test their crap!

Once a company accepts our money to play their game, they SHOULD be held accountable and should NOT have the right to restrict players from griping or playing their game. Quit virtue-signaling us and admit that many developers purposefully hide behind the Early Access status, oftentimes abusing it and trying for a cash grab with no real intentions of completing their IP.

Edited by vaylain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Scorpionshawn said:

Arks numbers in the first 30 days

1645921923_arkup.jpg.be5e31e408c5c1a59b362352651a364d.jpg

vs Atlas numbers

621038815_ATLASDOWN.jpg.ddbf10d2204fc693ad8b893626a2133f.jpg

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

 

It is normal, no matter how much you want to pretend it's not. EA games have a big influx and then bleed off a large percentage of those players as the tourists who have checked out the bright shiny new thing leave. This is not to say that Atlas does not have serious issues or that large numbers of people aren't genuinely upset. It only means that it's impossible to say at this juncture that the decrease in players is due to those factors, because it is entirely normal for an EA game at this stage. If those numbers never come back up, then at some point further down the road it could be stated with confidence that the lack of interest was due to negative EA experiences which gave the game a bad rap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the OP:

The game development industry is free to go back to the perfectly workable model of free but restricted alpha and beta testing any time it chooses to. It doesn't because the EA model up to this point had literally no downside for developers. I don't want Atlas to fail, but if it does, perhaps the silver lining might end up being it serving as an object lesson to the industry that releasing your game to EA before it's ready does actually carry downside risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, boomervoncannon said:

It doesn't because the EA model up to this point had literally no downside for developers.

I'd argue that revealing the inner workings of your process can and has been a downside. You don't get to polish that turd first its in the wide open for anyone to buy a ticket to see. 

That's the sailor's way. There's no earthly way of knowing which direction we are going. There's no knowing where we're rowing or which way the river's flowing. Is it raining, is it snowing? Is a hurricane a-blowing? Not a speck of light is showing. So the danger must be growing! Are the fires of Hell a-glowing? Is the grisly reaper mowing? Yes, the danger must be growing! For the rowers keep on rowing and they're certainly not showing any signs that they are slowing.

Point is who knows how things would be if they didn't use EA because they did and they can only move forward from here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nari said:

I'd argue that revealing the inner workings of your process can and has been a downside. You don't get to polish that turd first its in the wide open for anyone to buy a ticket to see. 

That's the sailor's way. There's no earthly way of knowing which direction we are going. There's no knowing where we're rowing or which way the river's flowing. Is it raining, is it snowing? Is a hurricane a-blowing? Not a speck of light is showing. So the danger must be growing! Are the fires of Hell a-glowing? Is the grisly reaper mowing? Yes, the danger must be growing! For the rowers keep on rowing and they're certainly not showing any signs that they are slowing.

Point is who knows how things would be if they didn't use EA because they did and they can only move forward from here.

Point taken but count me dubious about the notion that the downside you describe has outweighed the chance to generate revenue from selling access for any developer weighing their options.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, boomervoncannon said:

Point taken but count me dubious about the notion that the downside you describe has outweighed the chance to generate revenue from selling access for any developer weighing their options.

Oh, nono. The scale is certainly in their favor. The game is rigged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another problem with the EA model is that after a game transitions from EA to "Retail", developers usually are broke by then and fail to advertise and build up the hype once more. Instead, they will rely on us, for word of mouth to pipe up interest and that usually is not enough. Usually what happens is their main player base becomes, well, us. The ones who faithfully stood by them every step of the way. Unfortunately, without a strong remarketing campaign it will not be as lucrative for them.

Edited by vaylain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, boomervoncannon said:

It is normal, no matter how much you want to pretend it's not. EA games have a big influx and then bleed off a large percentage of those players as the tourists who have checked out the bright shiny new thing leave. This is not to say that Atlas does not have serious issues or that large numbers of people aren't genuinely upset. It only means that it's impossible to say at this juncture that the decrease in players is due to those factors, because it is entirely normal for an EA game at this stage. If those numbers never come back up, then at some point further down the road it could be stated with confidence that the lack of interest was due to negative EA experiences which gave the game a bad rap. 

Really because I can post prof on the numbers. So you can make up lies but you cant change the numbers

There are a lot of EA game that stayed in the green for the first few months

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×