Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

An issue with Pay to Test

    • 945 posts
    February 6, 2020 8:01 PM PST

    Ranarius said:

    I'm not really sure why you have that opinion.  I have almost the oppositie opinion.  If I were to pay $1000 to back a game I'd have even MORE motivation to make sure it's developed correctly.  If I were to spend say...$40 to get early access to a game then I'd get the point.  But, at least for me, the more money I put into something the more serious I am about that thing.

    With that said...I'm actually fairly against the whole idea of "pay to test" or "pay for early access" too.  But for completely different reasons.

    I agree with Kittik.  If you paid $1,000 to essentially play on a private server I don't think you would care about the game going live as much as you think you would.  You would likely want to get more value for your $1,000 which would immediately lose value as soon as people that didn't pay as much as you had access.  And some people paid $10,000...

    The majority of people in Pre-Alpha are likely fanbois, and (as some of the members on these forums are aware) I have had my share of debates with fanbois that blindly swear by the dev's every decision without question and even make up excuses to justify decisions that make no sense.  So aside from raw data being returned, I highly doubt that the Pre-Alpha testers are providing feedback contesting dev decisions in the interest of non-fanbois.

    But the important thing is that ultimately it doesn't matter.

    Edit:  I say this being a former tester for SoE and currently in a game that's been in Beta since 2012... which is exactly like Kittik mentioned, having bugs that people have just come to accept and none of the testers are really complaining or pushing for release as we just enjoy our private server and learning all of the tricks to have a huge advantage (8+ year lead) on any new player on how to advance in the game or just know mechanics that takes some months to learn through trial and error.


    This post was edited by Darch at February 6, 2020 8:09 PM PST
    • 48 posts
    February 6, 2020 9:51 PM PST

    I have wondered about this as well. I remember one of my first posts after I joined I actually commented on someone who was not happy with the way the Wizard was looking, whether I agreed or not is immaterial, but I thought it was nice to finally see someone who did not act like everything VR does is perfect, best ever stuff.

     

    If people were to read through my posts, I no doubt would not have a decent reputation because I have complained about the Ranger a fair number of times (and I probably will some more once we actually know more, since that was my main in EQ and EQ2 for ~5 years each), as well as the way Kilson mis-handled that thread about character looks. I am actually optimistic about this game, enough so that I am at the 250 tier, and may go to 300 later (no way I will ever do more, not my thing). But I am not a sunshine pumper.

     

    Anyways, I will hope people are doing a good job at testing and are not overly biased or willing to ignore things that shoulld be done.

     

    Edit - I now kinda think that VR could work this into one of their bi weekly streams. I would be curious if they changed anything they actually wanted due to user feedback (in particular, but other things as well).


    This post was edited by Merkades at February 6, 2020 10:08 PM PST
    • 2756 posts
    February 7, 2020 2:52 AM PST

    Darch said:

    ...we just enjoy our private server and learning all of the tricks to have a huge advantage (8+ year lead) on any new player on how to advance in the game or just know mechanics that takes some months to learn through trial and error.

    I'm actually worried about this aspect. I feel, in some ways, like being a tester might, to some extent, ruin my experience of the game. I don't want an advantage - I want to play *with* the community and experience everything as new players do.

    It's worth it in order to help development (and to be honest, to have a chance to *influence* development), but I kinda wish I could have my memory wiped when we get to release!

    • 945 posts
    February 7, 2020 5:00 AM PST

    @disposalist - that is the vibe I get from some of the streamers I've seen (not the dev showcases with like Cohh, but just the playthrough streams).  I'm not saying it is a "bad" thing, but it definitely lessens the whole purpose of having alpha-"testers" when its being performed by fans (fanbois) that just want to "play" the game.  As a professional tester I can assure you that really "testing" is nothing like what the Pre-Alpha "players" are doing.  The PA Players are simply generating data points and ptoentially giving "bias" feedback - which again, isn't "bad" because they paid to be in Pre-Alpha whereas an actual tester would be getting paid (or at least not have to pay to work).  

    The PA phases are more like a reward for people that donate a significant amount of money.  I'm sure "some" are actively contributing to the development of the game, but those same people are not concerned with timelines because that doesn't matter to them since they are already able to experience the game.

    I see this going down the same path as another game I'm currently in testing that has been 8 years - feature buildup is a project management nightmare and a project killer if not handled correctly.  Setting deadlines and specified items that need to be completed keeps the project on target and focused. If there is no deadline, projects have a tendency to drag on. People working on the project tend to generate new ideas and each worker wants to add elements to the project. While these new features might be beneficial, they can build upon one another until the project is out of hand. Deadlines help keep workers focused and avoid feature buildup.  Having numerous fanbois contributing ideas (good or bad) will only prevent the game from ever releasing because the fanbois are building the perfect private server.

    Add:  I can appreciate the Agile method of project management compared to the waterfall, with more inclusion of the customer to include those of us in these forums, I just don't approve of the Pay-to-play method that is likely pushing out production (because there are no hard deadlines).


    This post was edited by Darch at February 7, 2020 5:19 AM PST
    • 370 posts
    February 7, 2020 11:49 PM PST

    I don't consider so much an issue with pay to test as much as private and closed betas. Many people that follow a game from the early stages will play it differently than those who will mass consume it on launch. You get people that play the game the developers often intended the game to be played, much like how they did with in house testing. People in the early stages of a game development aren't looking for ways to exploit the system to level as fast as possible or gear up as quickly as possible. You can see it here from most the debates, a large portion of the community wants to just enjoy the ride. Those are the people who wont find the exploits or the issues with exploiting the system for the "carrot". Targeted betas which are often meant to gather information about specific encounters or areas are often short sighted. For example "here's a boss fight please test it with these prebuilt characters for 2 weeks" will gather inaccurate information compared to having people gather items them selves, some which may have unexpected effects in that encounter, and using them. 

     

    I think it's an issue any game developer has though.

    • 9115 posts
    February 9, 2020 5:30 PM PST

    Thread cleaned up - Please keep it on topic - Pay to test.

    • 363 posts
    February 10, 2020 12:05 PM PST

    Yes, obviously those who are paying $1000 to test Pre-Alpha are fans of the game. That being said, these fans are extremely passionate and want to see this game become everything that they are hoping for. They aren't going to pay $1000 just to lie down and let the game fall apart during development, if anything, they want to see the game become a success more than those who don't want to shell out $1000. I would much rather have testing done by those who are passionate about the game and respect it's tenets than by people who just don't really care (or understand) what the game is aiming for. For example, if testing was public, we could very well end up with peoople reporting "broken" encounters or quests because they can't solo them, when in reality they just don't understand what Pantheon is. People who drop $1000 have researched the game and understand what VR is aiming for. They are devoted to their investment and want to see a high quality, classic MMO come to fruition, all while maintaining VR's vision.

    • 370 posts
    February 10, 2020 1:11 PM PST

    Flossie said:

    Yes, obviously those who are paying $1000 to test Pre-Alpha are fans of the game. That being said, these fans are extremely passionate and want to see this game become everything that they are hoping for. They aren't going to pay $1000 just to lie down and let the game fall apart during development, if anything, they want to see the game become a success more than those who don't want to shell out $1000. I would much rather have testing done by those who are passionate about the game and respect it's tenets than by people who just don't really care (or understand) what the game is aiming for. For example, if testing was public, we could very well end up with peoople reporting "broken" encounters or quests because they can't solo them, when in reality they just don't understand what Pantheon is. People who drop $1000 have researched the game and understand what VR is aiming for. They are devoted to their investment and want to see a high quality, classic MMO come to fruition, all while maintaining VR's vision.

     

    100% disagree. I want people testing who are going to exploit the system to get ahead, not people who are going to follow the tenets of the vision the developers put forth. Walking down the path the Dev's have already tested wont find issues, actively trying to exploit things will.

    • 945 posts
    February 10, 2020 3:23 PM PST

    Flossie said:

    People who drop $1000 have researched the game and understand what VR is aiming for. They are devoted to their investment and want to see a high quality, classic MMO come to fruition, all while maintaining VR's vision.

    I just need to say people that dropped, $100, $200, $500 etc (i.e. everyone on these forums) "are devoted to their investment and want to see a high quality, classic MMO come to fruition, all while maintaining VR's vision" too.  I am simply arguing that Pay to test "at such a high cost" will likely produce less constructive criticism compared to players with less emotion vested (emotion being more likely to produce skewed perceptions).  We all want the game to succeed though.

    With that said, I also understand the need to limit the number of "non-professional testers" to have access to the game in its current state too.  I just feel that they could hire a handful of unbias testers for minimum wage (game design interns would be great canidates IMO).

    • 363 posts
    February 10, 2020 3:45 PM PST

    EppE said:

    100% disagree. I want people testing who are going to exploit the system to get ahead, not people who are going to follow the tenets of the vision the developers put forth. Walking down the path the Dev's have already tested wont find issues, actively trying to exploit things will.



    You're entirely missing the message I'm attempting to convey. I'm not saying these people will just play the game and follow the beaten path that VR has laid out. I'm saying that people who have invested this much financially know and understand the end goal. They will approach testing with a mindset such as "Okay, this is how the game is supposed to be, so let's make sure that is the end result." vs "I have no idea what this game is about but it's free to test so here I am, and I'm going to provide feedback to suit my playstyle whether or not that's what this game's intent is." The difference is essentially what I described in my last post, but I'll expand on it. Someone with the former mindset may find some mobs that are designed for a full group, but are way overconned. They discover they can easily solo them and get insane XP, since they know this is not the VR's intent, they report it as a bug and the mobs get properly adjusted. Whereas someone with the latter mindset may find the same mobs and think that's normal because they're a casual solo player who hasn't researched Pantheon at all and don't understand it's tenets. It's obviously a simplified example, but you get the point here.

    • 363 posts
    February 10, 2020 3:48 PM PST

    Darch said:

    I just need to say people that dropped, $100, $200, $500 etc (i.e. everyone on these forums) "are devoted to their investment and want to see a high quality, classic MMO come to fruition, all while maintaining VR's vision" too.  I am simply arguing that Pay to test "at such a high cost" will likely produce less constructive criticism compared to players with less emotion vested (emotion being more likely to produce skewed perceptions).  We all want the game to succeed though.

    With that said, I also understand the need to limit the number of "non-professional testers" to have access to the game in its current state too.  I just feel that they could hire a handful of unbias testers for minimum wage (game design interns would be great canidates IMO).



    That's simply not the case, I think people who pay that much will be the most critical because they are more invested and want a quality product for their investment.

    • 370 posts
    February 10, 2020 4:54 PM PST

    Flossie said:

    EppE said:

    100% disagree. I want people testing who are going to exploit the system to get ahead, not people who are going to follow the tenets of the vision the developers put forth. Walking down the path the Dev's have already tested wont find issues, actively trying to exploit things will.



    You're entirely missing the message I'm attempting to convey. I'm not saying these people will just play the game and follow the beaten path that VR has laid out. I'm saying that people who have invested this much financially know and understand the end goal. They will approach testing with a mindset such as "Okay, this is how the game is supposed to be, so let's make sure that is the end result." vs "I have no idea what this game is about but it's free to test so here I am, and I'm going to provide feedback to suit my playstyle whether or not that's what this game's intent is." The difference is essentially what I described in my last post, but I'll expand on it. Someone with the former mindset may find some mobs that are designed for a full group, but are way overconned. They discover they can easily solo them and get insane XP, since they know this is not the VR's intent, they report it as a bug and the mobs get properly adjusted. Whereas someone with the latter mindset may find the same mobs and think that's normal because they're a casual solo player who hasn't researched Pantheon at all and don't understand it's tenets. It's obviously a simplified example, but you get the point here.

     

    I get what your saying and any tester should be familiar with what the game is about if we want to get valuable information about them. There is a huge gap of player types between the die hard want to play the game just how the dev's designed it and the other side of people who don't understand why they can't solo 5 orcs at once. Niether of those groups are good for the game. I've been in a lot of closed alphas and betas, credited on one, and from my experience the die hard fans often shout down dissenting voices that are pointing out issues with the game. Sometimes people who spent $1000 on a game... or even zero because I've seen it in games where people didn't pay to test... but when people are emotionally invested in a game, or anything, they will defend and make excuses for blantant issues it has. Let me be clear, this will happen here too. It happens in every game. If the test group is only limited to these people who are emotionally invested in the game you are just as likely to see them make excuses for issues with the game as you are to recommend fixes.

     

    It's also important that the developers listen to their testers. During the Warhammer Online Alpha there were many idea's and suggestions that just got ignored because the studio knew best.


    This post was edited by EppE at February 10, 2020 4:54 PM PST
    • 945 posts
    February 10, 2020 5:32 PM PST

    Flossie said:

     

    That's simply not the case, I think people who pay that much will be the most critical because they are more invested and want a quality product for their investment.

    I'm one of those "people" in another game, and I actually don't care if the game ever goes live because I get to play basically on a private server without a subscription with just a couple hundred people... and if the devs ever decide the game is ready to go live I'll know everything about the game and have a huge advantage over hundreds of thousands of others.

    So, although some will be highly critical, most are just enjoying "playing" the game instead of "testing".  Add: which has its needs for devs, but don't think that just because someone paid more that they are better qualified or necessarily more interested than those that can't afford that price point.

    EppE said:

    There is a huge gap of player types between the die hard want to play the game just how the dev's designed it and the other side of people who don't understand why they can't solo 5 orcs at once. Niether of those groups are good for the game. I've been in a lot of closed alphas and betas, credited on one, and from my experience the die hard fans often shout down dissenting voices that are pointing out issues with the game. Sometimes people who spent $1000 on a game... or even zero because I've seen it in games where people didn't pay to test... but when people are emotionally invested in a game, or anything, they will defend and make excuses for blantant issues it has. Let me be clear, this will happen here too. It happens in every game. If the test group is only limited to these people who are emotionally invested in the game you are just as likely to see them make excuses for issues with the game as you are to recommend fixes.

    It's also important that the developers listen to their testers. During the Warhammer Online Alpha there were many idea's and suggestions that just got ignored because the studio knew best.

    100% agree EppE


    This post was edited by Darch at February 10, 2020 5:40 PM PST
    • 363 posts
    February 10, 2020 6:18 PM PST

    I guess it's a case by case thing then, because if I were to drop that kind of money to test a game, I would want it to be worth it in the end. That knowledge and experience that comes with testing will be worthless if the game isn't polished, or ultimately fails upon launch.. but that's just my mentality.

    • 724 posts
    February 11, 2020 9:51 AM PST
    'Pay to test' is the wrong descriptor for what this game and it's development is about. This is a post by a smaller simple mind that enjoys the world and reality if it can be booked down to two conflicting options. They do it everywhere. If something is complicated they over generalize and warp the issue untill it fits something unrecognizable and easy to snipe or worship. It's the sign of immaturity.
    • 363 posts
    February 11, 2020 10:48 AM PST

    StoneFish said: 'Pay to test' is the wrong descriptor for what this game and it's development is about. This is a post by a smaller simple mind that enjoys the world and reality if it can be booked down to two conflicting options. They do it everywhere. If something is complicated they over generalize and warp the issue untill it fits something unrecognizable and easy to snipe or worship. It's the sign of immaturity.


    Yikes, no need to take it there. There was meaningful discussion occuring in this thread by both sides. Personal insults, condescension, and preconceived notions are even greater signs of immaturity. Let's keep it on topic.

    Kilsin, do ya thang.

    • 1019 posts
    February 11, 2020 10:51 AM PST

    StoneFish said: 'Pay to test' is the wrong descriptor for what this game and it's development is about. This is a post by a smaller simple mind that enjoys the world and reality if it can be booked down to two conflicting options. They do it everywhere. If something is complicated they over generalize and warp the issue untill it fits something unrecognizable and easy to snipe or worship. It's the sign of immaturity.

    Ehh, I've been called worse.  But I do think your generalization of me is a bit off.


    This post was edited by Kittik at February 11, 2020 10:51 AM PST
    • 22 posts
    February 11, 2020 7:54 PM PST

    Regardless of this topic. A better question might be how long will people continue to support VR and VR receive new pledges with at this time "not a lot to show" I love this community and the efforts given by VR but at some point, there will be a breaking point instead of a break-even point. I'm fearful of no real big changes as of release dates or pre-alpha will continue to detur much of the existing audience as well as future players. Best wishes to the community and to VR in their endeavors. Maybe knowing more about the funding they still require to staff up or finish the game would give us all a current understanding of this build. Many of you are five years in watching this so it begs to wonder how much more time is needed to create this game, how much staff is needed to snowball this game into existence, and what could be done by the community to promote growth: either funding or opensource support with small files or code that needs to be finished or ever started. Does anyone know how many people actually work on this project? Since the webpage hasn't had any "real" updates is the About Us - The Team page even accurate? Not looking for answers as I'll continue to support but these amoung many of your contributions are very real and serious questions that many of us face as we wait and watch the "progress"

    • 2756 posts
    February 12, 2020 2:45 AM PST

    ScuryLives said:

    Regardless of this topic. A better question might be how long will people continue to support VR and VR receive new pledges with at this time "not a lot to show" I love this community and the efforts given by VR but at some point, there will be a breaking point instead of a break-even point. I'm fearful of no real big changes as of release dates or pre-alpha will continue to detur much of the existing audience as well as future players. Best wishes to the community and to VR in their endeavors. Maybe knowing more about the funding they still require to staff up or finish the game would give us all a current understanding of this build. Many of you are five years in watching this so it begs to wonder how much more time is needed to create this game, how much staff is needed to snowball this game into existence, and what could be done by the community to promote growth: either funding or opensource support with small files or code that needs to be finished or ever started. Does anyone know how many people actually work on this project? Since the webpage hasn't had any "real" updates is the About Us - The Team page even accurate? Not looking for answers as I'll continue to support but these amoung many of your contributions are very real and serious questions that many of us face as we wait and watch the "progress"

    You posted this the day after this Tweet: https://twitter.com/PantheonMMO/status/1227328903070527488

    Incase you don't use Twitter:

    "The Pantheon Development team joins @CohhCarnage February 18 at 12pm, as we present “The Making of Faerthale.” Get an extended look at the sights and content for our most stunning zone to date. Plus, maybe a few extra surprises. Hope to see you there! #CommunityMatters"

    Personally, I'm quite happy with the progress made and the info revealed over the years. I have chosen to believe the team when they explain about website delays and Project Faerthale. When they tell us they are working hard and that they actually intentionally choose to not tell us more at this stage for good reason, even when they'd like to.  They can't and shouldn't tell us everything about the game or about the team - the kind of detail about both that would be needed to give any deep level of reassurance would be a big waste of time and effort and, to be honest, you could have given them $100,000 and it wouldn't give you the right to know. That's not what 'backing' a project means.

    • 1992 posts
    February 12, 2020 1:34 PM PST

    disposalist said:

    You posted this the day after this Tweet: https://twitter.com/PantheonMMO/status/1227328903070527488

    I bet you noticed Nathan Napalm's reply to that tweet :D

    • 2756 posts
    February 12, 2020 1:39 PM PST

    Jothany said:

    disposalist said:

    You posted this the day after this Tweet: https://twitter.com/PantheonMMO/status/1227328903070527488

    I bet you noticed Nathan Napalm's reply to that tweet :D

    Haha! I did! May the sock-pooping commence!

    • 153 posts
    February 13, 2020 5:36 AM PST

    I've given up on this, i feel like they scammed a bunch of people out of their money by instead of offering Alpha the created a new label pre-alpha and stack a bunch of versions on the end of it, its like a lure to fish and i admit i fell for it, as long as they keep throwing the next number in line behine the word pre alpha people will believe they are making progress and all they need is 2 other people to say that they are then everyone believes they are really it will be pre-alpha 200050002 before alpha gets released IF alpha gets released

    • 801 posts
    February 13, 2020 7:20 AM PST

    There was a time a thread like this would not exist. So what has changed?

    Its not pantheon, its all games in general and would be off topic.

     

    Pay to test is a bad topic, because i can say its an easy way for devs to take advantage of the public. Early Access in steam is a prime example for an unfinished game.

    I personally cant stand a company that takes advantage and either never had the funding to begin with, and never cared to release a product.

     

    " I bought a new razor it was left unfinished, and they had no razor blades in it. I tried to shave once"

    • 159 posts
    February 13, 2020 7:03 PM PST

    Kittik said:

     

     

    I believe an issue with current games and their "Support us at $1000 and become and Pre-Alpha tester" mentality is that you get Fan boi's that are doing the testing.

    Fan boi's aren't critical enough of the game


    Pay to test is great for indie game studios, but it's not good when the creators are only hearing praise for the work they are doing, slow as it might be.  Because a tester who is critical could end up losing their $1000 and not be an "invited" tester anymore.

     

    I have to agree with the first part. Fan boys are not going to be critical enough. However I don't think all the people able to pledge at 1k or higher are going to fall into that category.

    I don't agree with the term "pay to test". I see it as a perk a reward for pledging and helping the game come to life. I take no issue with the 1k plus pledges getting to do PA. I know if I ever pledge 1k or more to a game. I'll be getting no love & a lot of yelling, nagging from my wife. Maybe sleeping on the floor too.

    So more power to them if they can pledge at 1K or higher. Plus all pledges help the game.

    My issue is having to many PA's... I don't feel like a 1k pledger should get to test the game seven times or more before it opens up to include the alpha pledgers. As long as this coming up PA is the last one. I can live with that.

    If you never pledge. You don't have a right to test PA,Alpha, or Beta.  Getting to test in the early stages is a reward to pledgers. I'd get piss off if I found out that a person that didn't take the same risk as the rest of us that have pledge got to test the game. It is all about risk and reward to me. No risk no reward.

     

    • 844 posts
    February 13, 2020 9:08 PM PST

    Is this really a serious topic?

    Or is it more about some people jealous that of those that have 1000+ bones to throw away on some dream game. And their getting some coveted early access and special treatment.

    I simply find the complaining here a bit ridiculous.

    I would think the more money finding it's way to VR would make those people anxious for results happier. I know that's how I see it.

    People with wealth have and will always gain more advantage and special treatment, as well as influencing things where possible. You have no farther to look than our current political and legal system for that evidence.

    In the past, one of the games I'd been involved with working on, a game that was FTP. We had BIG spenders. Players that spent $1000's, tens of thousands, and yes one that spent over $250,000 over the course of a couple years.

    We tracked all our big spenders like casino's do. We classified them. Blue whales, narwhales, etc. One of the team was a direct contact for our whales. And they got special treatment.

    Small studios, indy studios want to make money, they need to make money to exist and keep making games, keep adding content to existing games.

    The few hundred I pledged to Pantheon would barely pay for a day or so of work for a good programmer.

    It takes a lot of $$$, even for a small studio.

    Last game I worked on with about ~90 people for a year. We went over budget with costs coming to about ~$20M.

    We got lucky. That game, over the period of a couple years, has grossed over $1B. Yes, that's a B.

    Making games costs money. The less you have the longer and longer it takes.

    If the penalty for not taking money with conditions is your game doesn't get made. Most people will opt for their game to be made.

    I frankly don't care who gets what as long as their investment moves along the progress.