Should The Alpha Disclaimer Let The Game Off The Hook?

[solodude23 649]

Personally I think it does and doesn't.  Yes it is an alpha, and yes it will have bugs and glitches from here to the moon, but the issue is we had to pay for it.

 

In order to have to pay for it, you have to buy it. Nobody forced anybody to buy it. If anything, the DEV team tried there best to convince you NOT to buy (and subsequently pay for) it. If I wanted a playable, complete, bug-free, game I'd have bought the full game when it released or bought the game during alpha and not played it until the game was complete. I, however, was more than delighted to be able to participate in the development of the game while also getting the final version at a lower cost. 

 

I don't get it. It's win-win. I read the rest of your post and found your points to be moot based on the fact than you didn't have to buy it. We're lucky the development team has been so great at listening to the community and working to make the alpha more playable for it's fan base despite the fact that they don't even have to.

[bfisher 561]

Fact of the matter is the game isn't "alpha".  Alpha is typically an internal release first version used for testing.  When Bohemia decided to release the "alpha" to the general public, the DayZ standalone became, at best, an open beta with frequent content releases.

 

Here's the problem.  They've already released the game to general public.  So everyone who played the mod or heard about the mod or otherwise is interested in the game has probably already bought it;  Rocket has already indicated he is checking out.  At some point, it will no longer be financially viable for Bohemia to continue updating the game.  I mean if it goes feature complete in 2-3 years time, how many people will still be playing it?

[wetspot 11]

To the OP's last question, I absolutely wholeheartedly believe they knew the rough limitations of the engine they were developing this game on. It's still up in the air wether its a case of     'it's alpha'     or a case of     'fuck it, lets make the best game we can out of this shit'.

I think there's hope that the problems that have come with this engine (and from what I understand, they're the biggest gameplay problems I see when I play) can be band-aided or solved.

So far, this alpha is truly an alpha, it really doesnt feel like a marketing ploy. It feels like a living breathing changing game that is still heavily under the early stages of development, no?

I think all we can do is trust that there are plans in place to solve a lot of the crap we see when we play. And if it turns out rocket's vision was thrown onto rotten canvas I guess we can thank them for all the fish.

I've had a blast alpha testing this stinking mess, personally.

[hells high 676]

Since your post kinda seemed to run in circles and I'm not really sure what you are trying to get at, I'll just answer the title: In cases of unfinished features/bugs/placeholders, yes. In terms of poor design choices that AREN'T going to eventually be replaced by a proper system, no.

 

A lot of people seem to think that talking about any bugs or issues you have during an alpha is bad, which is wrong. Its complaining about the issues in an nonconstructive way that demonstrates you don't seem to understand the software is still being made that is "bad". However there are also some that think the alpha is the product they bought and that it should be 100% perfect which is worse (these are generally the idiots that scream at the idiots screaming "alpha".)

[Jex 1104]

Let's approach this question from another angle. Let's assume before hand that the players know the following.

 

1) Players have a rudimentary understanding of how to program code.

 

2) Players understand the stages of Alpha, Beta and Release

 

3) Players now know that an Alpha is basically a broken game, requires lots of coding and testing, has additional features to add that could break any other part of the game and because of this, things can take longer to add than was first thought.

 

4) Players are also well aware of the fact that a release date is practically never met for any game.

 

So with the above knowledge, what is the answer to the question?

[Unforeseen 24]

You guys are all trolls. The OP is saying that you can't blame alpha for the devs not following through with the expectations of themselves that they gave to the buyer. This has been a VERY sloppy alpha, no matter which way you choose to look at it. The devs should not have made so many promises, and focused on fixing ALL of the currently existing bugs before adding new features so to not create a pile up.

[Mdogg2005 447]

What game needs to be let off the hook exactly?  It's advertised as "Early access alpha."

 

If the game said "Now available!" and then had the alpha disclaimer then and only then can people bitch.  But until then people really just need to shut the fuck up.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Mdogg2005

[Grimey Rick 3417]

After partaking in the DayZ alpha, I personally feel this is a horrible way to develop a game. Closed alpha, closed beta, followed by open beta is the best method in my opinion.

[wild_man 4442]

is pure no sense topic  :huh:

 

game IS alpha early access :thumbsup:  :rolleyes:

 

if they using same disclaimer when is BETA or FULL RELEASE then is time for discuss ;)

 

but OP asking this now show everyone his brain don't realise what is alpha early release meaning :D

[Crooked Hauser 258]

I think all video games should make you agree that it might suck before it lets you play. EA would be out of business.

[Ozar 108]

i dont get this thread.

 

what the hell are you guys talking about?

[iBane 381]

The creator and development lead has said in numerous interview on a variety of media forums that the game is broken and shouldn't be purchased at this time.  There is a similar warning on the Steam purchase page for this Alpha.  

 

No one who buys this game can reasonably claim they did so without fair warning that the game is incomplete, buggy, and broken in certain ways.  

 

If the dev team was misrepresenting the state of the game, yes they would be rightfully open to criticism, but this is not the case.  Dean has been exceedingly honest about the condition of the game throughout the development process.  

[solodude23 649]

Fact of the matter is the game isn't "alpha".  Alpha is typically an internal release first version used for testing.  When Bohemia decided to release the "alpha" to the general public, the DayZ standalone became, at best, an open beta with frequent content releases.

 

So you're stating that in order for it to be an alpha it HAS to be internal? That's the only factor in determining the stage of a game? The only thing you stated that I agree with is that "alphas are typically an internal release". Typically, meaning in some cases alphas are not internal, as such is the case with DayZ. Also, betas don't have "frequent content releases" because they are in the beta stage of development. You know what does have frequent content releases? Alpha version.

 

 

You guys are all trolls. The OP is saying that you can't blame alpha for the devs not following through with the expectations of themselves that they gave to the buyer. This has been a VERY sloppy alpha, no matter which way you choose to look at it. The devs should not have made so many promises, and focused on fixing ALL of the currently existing bugs before adding new features so to not create a pile up.

 

I assume you've been involved in the development of many alphas, then?

Edited March 4, 2014 by solodude23