In my mind, the fun of Elemental resides in the fact that you’re not just trying to conquer some fantasy world but the world itself is designed to be so organic and unique from game to game.
A lot of the difference between games is a result of things like a tech tree that has different techs in it, a huge library of special content that is integrated into map generation randomly each game, quests, integrated community content, and the divergent paths to victory.
Now, as some of you know, Stardock’s bread and butter isn’t from game development. Our desktop software and enterprise software have always given us the luxury of being able to take as long as we want to develop our games as well as take “risks” on the way we release our games (no copy protection for instance – which, in case people are wondering, the retail version of Elemental will not have copy protection).
And that brings me to a question I wanted to pose to you folks. Would you be interested in us extending the beta? Since anyone can join betas by pre-ordering, we could try something that really hasn’t been done before as far as I know – make the beta experience something truly outstanding unto itself.
Right now, the schedule is this:
This is pretty much the same schedule we’ve been doing since Galactic Civilizations I back in 2003.
But imagine this kind of beta instead:
So what would be the point of this? The point would be to make it a lot more fun to develop the game with the beta testers. Rather than have v1.0 come out in February and then have v1.1 in say April and so on, we simply keep working on the game with the beta testers.
Then, when we release the game, it’s got a ton more stuff.
Here are some thoughts that come to mind:
How many players should/can we allow in a game? 8? 12? 32?
How sophisticated can we make dungeons in the game?
How sophisticated can we make quests in the game?
How sophisticated can we make tactical battles in the game?
How big of a scope can we give the campaign?
We don’t have the financial pressure to release the game in February and because of that, we have an opportunity to try something we’ve not done that we think might be really special and that is vastly increase the contribution of the beta players into the game than what we’ve done before.
The end result would, I think, be a game that could very well be a classic. A year’s worth of player input before it was released to the general public.
Tell us what you think.
Will this US version be any different from the version released in Europe? There are no restrictions on running US software on European computers like in the console industry, right?
No more than the localisation (if at all). For example I bought the boxed version of Sins of a Solar Empire in Germany but didn't bother to install from the disc. Instead I downloaded the whole game after registering the serial number with Impulse. Even then I could have chosen to install the german version but chose the english one instead.
Stardock plays quite nice when it comes to region control. And they have a outstanding record of supporting their games.
Umm....is it too late for Monk to join the beta?
I wasn't sure what if anything I could contribute to this beta I mean.....I've never played a game like elemental before.........but maybe if nothing else I could help test the networking?
Beta has not started yet. So if you pre-order before PAX (Sep. 4th - 6th) you should be save. The netcode should not be as big as a problem as with Demigod since it will be client2server only. But your dedication is probably welcome anyway.
And welcome to the world of fantasy TBS.
Monk, your opinion is as appreciaed as anyone else's. You are indeed very welcome because because you have not played a game like this, you can tell if the game works intuitively or not, and maybe if the explanations in-game are clear or not. Since most of us have in fact played games like these, we do not have the luxury of being good judges on these points.
In the end not even beta-experience is needed. I am a tester for a well-known major release and while I do not have knowledge on how to test, I can find bugs and place suggestions just fine. You will be fine!
Right, I guess I will pre-order anyways and pay for the shipping.
If this game will not be great, I will come over to SD HQ, knock on the door andgive all of you the frowning of a lifetime!
My other though would be this. This board represents a small subset of the eventual players of the game. And, I dare say, the vast majority of these players would be willing to do a long beta. But how many of the REST of the players, not represented on this board, would be willing to do this?
In the apocryphal, paraphrased words of Marie Antoinette, "Let them wait." Instant gratification is severely overrated, except by drug pushers, marketers, pimps, and other entrepreneurs who understand how well that basic human impulse can be exploited.
Recreational snarky-talk aside, one big reason that I *really* like the idea of a very long public beta is that there's a real world out there and plenty of folks who might be able to give valuable input won't be able to participate effectively if a short beta timeframe conflicts with their responsibilities. And I'm not just thinking about the grownups with jobs, families, and maybe a social or civic life. Students can have whole semesters that are 'lost' to things ranging from torrid love affairs to family medical crises. If we have a beta that runs until next August, the chances for any given individual to have a satisying 'experience' will increase because their schedule cross-pressure will decrease.
At first glance I love this idea, I would love to help shape the game and get a chance to have my voice heard. Hell, I still tell my friends that it was my suggestion to use different weapons and armors in GalCiv II (not that it was my idea first, I got it from Starships Unlimited && not to say that no one else already had the idea kicking around in their head when I posted it). It makes the game more enjoyable when you think you have had a part in making it.
This whole weapon thing was your idea? I hated that feature and the countless techs that accompanied it. Now I have a name to add to the evil feature!
I would say yes for this idea if only for one reason
THE REASON: the public/gaming industries overall perception of the game may in fact be more important than the actual gameplay. I speak of games like Demigod. Even though the crashes and gameplay are not that bad and the game was just released, after I read the forums and reviews, my impression was that the game was on its last legs and that the community is dying. I think that same impression is becoming a self fufilling prophecy even though that is not true because ppl believed it was true it became true. If ppl think that elemental had an amazing beta period that made the game extremely stable they will be more likely to post good reviews and purchase the game even without any real experience with the gameplay.
Thats just my 2 cents
Macc
There's a lot of benefits from taking longer to develop a game using the feedback of a large base of testers. From past experience in Stardock betas I've always felt that the community had a lot of positive, creative things to suggest. There will of course always be suggestions that are unrealistic, but that's part of the fun.
No financial pressure to release is a pretty rare thing and it's often said that they never finish their games, they simply stop working on them. As long as the time is spent in an efficient manner and there's a plan that gets followed, I think you should definately extend the development process. Just keep on target and don't get seduced into implementing too many things which time might not allow.
4x games always have such grand potential, since they can be expanded in loads of directions (tactical combat, dungeons, empire control, aesthetic detail etc) and giving the game time to mature in a slow manner will definately highlight what's missing or what doesn't feel up to quality of the other aspects.
I also like the fact that playing from the cloth map in the initial phase of beta will allow you guys to try new features without having to make a lot of assets that might be trashed shortly thereafter. More time = more testing different things to fine-tune the gameplay.
I'd say go for it, Stardock has always been great with betas and I think the community respects and trusts that enough for you to do whatever you want
Underwater cities and spells that shatter the world, forcing players to use steampunk airships please. Ok I'm done...
EDIT: Look at how Blizzard is working on Starcraft 2, they are taking as long as they need (they certainly have enough money to work on it) and have been adding new things/rewriting old things and tweaking the game based on feedback that they are getting. They've been working on the game for a while and they certainly have a lot of pressure to make it good, but it's a perfect example of how much a game can benefit from a long testing/feedback phase.
Here is where I kinda need to put my foot down. (I apoligize in advance to any Blizzard fanboys, including myself, that might be offended by the following paragraphs) How can it be called a "perfect example" if it isn't out yet? It doesn't even look close to out, based on the way they keep pushing it back. Blizzard does a good job at responding to feedback, but they certainly are not perfect. 1st off, why look at starcraft 2? They have feedback on virtually nothing. Just a few things they've specifically asked of fans, so how can you really look at it? I wouldn't say they are 'tweaking' based on any kind of external feedback, rather just letting fans influence a few semi-major design choices. It isn't a good example at all. Its a black hole of money that likely will not make up for its development costs for some time, especially considering it hasn't even started taking pre-orders yet. (i.e. only spent money. An unreleased game cannot be an example of a feedback and release process, especially when "feedback" is limited and "release" is non-existant. Might as well use Duke Nukum Forever: see zero punctuation)
Blizzard has done a very good job at releasing high quality products, and have made some dramatic changes to the industry as a result. However, it seems they've grown perhaps too big and quite pretentious; even started slipping (don't get me started on mistakes they've made with WoW, or the warning signs of 'fail' from diablo 3). I think some members of Blizzard see their own faults, which is part of the reason they keep delaying to fix things. But, not everybody can benifit from being "on the top" of whatever genre they enter, and as a result only a few could feasably function under the kinds of release schedules (or lack there of) that Blizzard keeps. There can be a lot learned from how they got such quality titles, but Blizzard does not do beta feedback the way that Stardock does theirs.
Well, I really did not aim to make a profound and sweeping statement that Blizzard is doing everything right nor that Starcraft 2 is a holy project of divine excellence. My phrasing of "perfect example" was probably too generic in regards to that project. I wanted to point out that a game with a longer than normal development phase has the luxury of large changes to gameplay/technology that might normally not have been done in a "normal" development timeframe. I just keep hearing how they are adding this or changing that and I would imagine they wouldn't really have time to do all those things with a regular development time.
Nevertheless, the danger of any title becoming, as you say, a black hole of money is certainly great when you start extending development times and less financial pressure applies. As such it's certainly in Stardock's best interest to assess the financial dangers of such a choice and to make sure to stay efficient and focused throughout development despite the lack of immediate pressure. Though they've no doubt discussed this already.
Having said that, Elemental does not need extra development time. Yet that extra time can be used to persue suggestions that arise after the game has been extensively tested, pulled apart, replayed and discussed. Considering that Stardock have such a good track record in interacting with this community, especially during betas, they can make maximum use of that extra time.
My two cents: there is no way Starcraft 2 is going to be a "black hole of money." For pay custom maps and over ten million copies sold easily will ensure that.
It'll be a black hole of money for anyone who wants to play it (and not just pirate it). And it will probably take them some time to make back everything used in development. I mean, they've been making it for what? 6 years? (That's what wikipedia says, anyway)
I'm guessing they must've split up the campaign in order to milk more money from the people. Spend all this money on the game now so they only need to make a new campaign or possibly a few new units and voila, more income.
I am afraid I am the only one who does NOT like this idea.
I like the idea of releasing the game later and having more input from players, but I think it is too long to wait to have Beta1 in Sept, and next one after January.
Instead, keep original schedule, but add Beta 4, 5 and 6. The ideas from gamers needs to be implemented and tested and discussed and feedback implemented and so on!
The participation of the players is not the time issue, I do not think I can give MORE feedback after Beta 1 if Beta 2 is in January instead of October. 2 Month is more than enough to play the game many many times, and make suggestions and discuss it with other people.
WE NEED MORE BETAS INSTEAD OF LONGER WAIT TIME BETWEEN THEM!
There would be beta 1A, Beta 1B, Beta 1C, and so forth still.
THAT^ I like then!
Something similar happend with Twilight of the armor, as I remember. The expantion significantly benifited out of this.
Each beta cycle is more a 'time window' when people can get in; multiple builds will come out with varying frequencies.
I've gone round and round on this, and I'm still not sure where I stand.
As part of my work, my group engages with software developers both for control software (for robots that we use in the lab), as well as for analytical software that helps us make sense of the massive amount of data that the robots are capable of generating. And in both of those cases, I think having code earlier is better, and having "microupdates", that we do every software turn (3 weeks for us). We got to this point for two reasons; one is obvious, the other is less so.
The obvious reason is that client/user input helps shape the software better to our needs. The less obvious one is that we feel engaged on the software when there are regular updates. We used to have a quarterly update meeting, and get a major patch at that time. The problem was, we couldn't remember what we'd suggested. When you don't have somewhat regular updates, you forget about this or that minor capability that you wanted to track. I know having requirement documents helps that process, and we do that, but somehow I don't think you'll get a user community here to sign up for a req. doc.
So, I'd agree with the community in general that delaying the release is probably better. But I'd caution that you should have regular (often) periodic updates of the code, even if it's just to clean up little things. Letting things go too long between patches tends to disengage your customers from the process, and after the year or so that you're talking about taking for the beta, then end run to release could feel more like a slog, because you only get periodic feedback on your design.
Winni
I'll be truly happy about a longer beta cycle, i'm sure that wil make that the perfect game anyone is expecting!
(that's my first post here, Hello world! )
double post sorry
Bah, maybe I'll have the money next chance.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
