EscapeFromLag

Rookie
  • Content count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

1 Follower

About EscapeFromLag

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. I'm not using Wikipedia, I am using what I have learned while studying computer science and just show it on sites as source to at least have some support for the arguments other than just claiming stuff. Let's leave this open/closed out of it. Maybe I am wrong, maybe they do just interpret it as @Woodsen_Moosen explained it and I anyway don't see any negative impact on just calling it open/closed as long as everybody understands what it means for the game. But I highly disagree with the Beta part. "Alpha" and "Beta" are well defined terms and cannot just altered as you wish. If anybody could just randomly call anything Alpha/Beta/w.e. those terms have entirely no meaning and are useless anyway. But they are used so they do need a uniform meaning. And even if you could just decide for yourself what they mean, there still does have to be a difference between them, doesn't it? Generally it is either of those two: 1.) Alpha Testing: takes place at the developers site under observed conditions. Beta Testing: takes place under regular use conditions. 2.) Alpha Version: Features in development. Beta Version: Feature complete. But in EfT we have neither, so what is the difference between Alpha and Beta here? We essentially just get one more map and that's it. I don't think a bit more content qualifies as the next big development stage. What happens on the next map, do we go into a "Gamma"? Or will it straight out be RC? Using those terms incorrectly is false marketing/advertising and I am aware that BSG is neither the first nor the last company to do that and I am also aware that mose people probably don't give a sh*t and just want to play the game. But you cannot advertise a green car but then deliver a red car and then say "oh green means something else for me because I am color blind". What's next, some company selling a Tetris clone and calling it a Beta for the next big shooter? You would be okay with that? I would be pissed. Just like anybody who knows that a Beta is supposed to be feature complete, expects just that and then finds out that EfT is still missing more than half of the promised features.
  2. Then this is not an actual Beta and everybody who pre-orders the game to get into an actual one expecting all promised features to be there is essentially being scammed. It is not limited to anything. Potentially the entire world can play EfT at that point at the same time and since BSG guarantees the access for everybody, they cannot restrict it, so no - there is no restriction. What you are describing there is just "free" access and there is a big difference between "free" and "open". Using your definition, an officially released game would also have closed access to those who pay for it, which is not the case - an officially released game is open to the public regardless, which is why it is "released to the public" in the first place. You usually just have to pay for it. If anybody who is interested can get into the game by will (no matter if by paying or not), the game has open access. If you are not guaranteed to get into the game and you have to get selected/invited first, it has closed access. If it is free to play or not is a whole different story. And in EfT you are not being selected/invited, you are buying yourself the access and you are guaranteed to get it. Granted, open can and sometimes does get interpreted as free and often is free at the same time, but it was just a sidenote from me anyway that in cs and in general products, free and open are not the same thing. The labeling doesn't impact the way EfT is distributed anyway. The bigger problem is that it gets marketed as Beta while not actually being a Beta.
  3. To qualify as a beta, a software first needs all planned features implemented. Beta stage is just polishing and adding content to existing features. Does that mean we will get missions, open world, karma and hideout or will this "Beta" be nothing but a renamed Alpha with one more map? Btw "closed" means limited/selected invites only. Since anybody who preorders the game gets into this "Beta", this is not closed but open access to the public.
  4. This is Alpha! By the time the game is released in 2025, the visuals and mechanics won't be impressive anymore. You see, this Alpha excuse goes both ways. What spotlight? What level? No big streamer wants to stream this game for a good reason: It sucks. No there wouldn't be. Practically abandoning the project is what the Day Z devs did. People still defended the project and masturbated over every little update of nothing after months of silence. The development of EfT is awful and the updates, are not impressive at all, now look at the patch news how this community goes off about those shitty updates. It's like they have 1 guy for the sound records, 1 guy for weapons models, 1 guy for maps and 3 programmers for the entire game, that's it. Considering the high AAA price for this game, the quality and pace of the EfT development is one big joke. You paid $150 for a group of 6 good developers (or 100 terrible developers) making this game. No it wasn't. At all. They advertised as if the game is almost finished. Take this post from a developer for example: You said yourself that game development takes years. I am a software developer myself. The last year of the development is just polishing and bugfixing of a practically finished product. Initially planning a release for 2016 is one thing, but saying in 2016 that the game will come out in 2016 means that the game is almost done. They made all these statements before anybody had access to the game. That's why people preordered it. People thought they are just preordering the game to play it in 2016. Now look at the game 1 year later... Do you seriously think this wasn't a fraud? You call that clear advertising? Implying the game is almost done and then the game hasn't even got the basis? You are fine with the developers lying to you? Yes, it is your own fault for pre-ordering and falling for the fraud. Just like it is your own fault for getting a virus on your PC. That doesn't justify the means of fraud in any way... This post above will become a bigger joke with a every year and sooner or later even the hardcore fanboys in this forum will realize what kind of a joke the development of this game is. People already made screenshots of it in case it gets deleted.
  5. By saying mid 2016 (before anybody had access to the game) that the game will be released in 2016, BSG implied that the game is almost done and only needs polishing and bugfixing. You are saying yourself that it takes a lot of time to develop a game. In no way is it realistic to say a game will be done in a few months if all they had was a broken basis to the game with most of the features missing. So no, people didn't know what they were buying into. BSG made the best effort to point out that the game will come out soon. Ultimately that was a lie, fraud, scam or w.e. you want to call it. No "research" would have helped there. People thought they are just pre-ordering a game for 2016. What does research have to do with a game being sh*t? If it's a terrible game it's a terrible game. Even if it is our fault for pre-ordering this crap, the game is still terrible. The game has tons of issues - that is a simple observable fact. How is "research" even an excuse? That is the most ridiculous argument I've read today on the web. If you made your research and are so wise about this so transparent development of this game, please tell me a) the number of developers b) the lead game designer and c) the games this lead game designer made before EfT. Include sources to each. Until then this "research" argument is just a big joke. The Division didn't cost $150. Even the Gold edition costs almost half of that if you add the tax and fees to the 150. Higher price should lead to higher quality or faster development. Right now it is rather the opposite. The game quality is horrible and with only 1 map per year the game will stay in development for at least 7 more years. The Division was a terrible game. Just because other games can have slow and deceiving development, EfT is allowed to have it, too?
  6. Tarkov Newsweek June 2016 Page 43: "Yes, the game will be released in 2016" which means there is only a few months of development left compared to several years in total. That directly implies that the game is almost finished. Turned out to be a fraud. After even twice the time later, there is not even a sign of having the promised features fulfilled. For example character skills, which were said in the first gameplay stream to be already done. After buying the game it turns out they are still not in the game even a year later. Right now there are only a couple of crippled ones. And then there is the Alpha itself. One of the traits of the EoD version is Alpha access, which can mean exactly 2 things: Alpha testing: Not the case, see above. Alpha testing begins much later in the development and makes no sense with most features missing. playing the α-Version: Not the case either. The α-Version is the most recent build of the game, which gets updated many times per day. We do not have that. For us there is only a stable build which the developers update occasionally. That is a β-Version. So in the end we do not have such a thing as Alpha access. It is just a meaningless term added to the name of the game as indicator for "the game is still in development". Who said anything about prioritizing? For $150 the development pace is way too slow. They shouldn't work faster on it, but with more people. Would you be satisfied, if 1 guy would be developing the entire game? Well, see I'm not satisfied with whatever amount they are working on it now. For $150 whatever they are doing is way too slow. The quality of their work is questionable too, since everything about the game is quite buggy. If the public has access to the game when they want it, it is released to the public. That's what the word "released" means. If the public has the choice to buy into the game, they need to know if they should rather invest it into another game. And that is the case here, so any type of review is justified. You should ask yourself what a finished product is. Is Diablo 2 a finished product? It still gets updated, you know? Does that make it an Alpha/Beta? Are people not allowed to review Diablo 2 because it still changes every year? Overwatch still gets new features and content (and much faster than EfT), is Overwatch now an Alpha? Ask yourself what meaning "Alpha" or "Beta" has aside from developers just calling their crappy games like that so people like you can find excuses for them being terrible. Who cares if the game is still in development as long as anybody can buy access to it? Most games are still in development even after they are officialy marketed as such. Right now the game sucks, that's the truth, do whatever you want with that fact. If you think it may become better later on or not doesn't change anything about all the issues the game has now. The average Joe who has the choice between buying this game or any other AAA title should know to rather invest in the other game. Chances are it is also still in development and improvement even if it isn't labeled as Alpha/Beta. Those terms only have a meaning if they are used correctly in software development. Otherwise they just stand for "Caution! Garbage game ahead!"
  7. Luckily someone like me knows that in most civilized countries you have a right to dismiss a contract within 14 days, no matter the terms, to avoid fraud cases like EfT. Although BSG, the shady company it is, wouldn't willingly cooperate to such a law. Not allowing refunds in any case (even in ridiculous cases where your PC cannot run the game despite meeting the requirements) is a fraud in itself and is absolutely unacceptable, no matter if it is your own fault for not reading the terms or not. Also, luckily PayPal knows that implying the product is almost done and then neither having close to what was promised nor properly working on it after charging more than AAA games for it is a fraud and refunds the purchase anyway up to 180 days after purchasing. Aside from the fact that this is neither Alpha testing (see above) nor an Alpha version (devs have a different client than us) and that this has nothing to do with an Alpha: We are not forgetting it. It's just that it doesn't change the fact that the game is in a terrible state right now and the development is super slow considering we paid $150. Here "Alpha" is nothing but a label so people can come up with excuses all the time. Technically the game is released to the public since anybody who wants can buy himself access to it and the public deserves to know if it is worth the money or not. And now it certainly isn't. The game is barely worth $20. Being "Alpha" doesn't mean anything. Games are in development and unfinished even after Alpha/Beta/RC. They can become better than they are now, but not necessarily. With more features there will also be more issues and problems and maybe the game will even become worse than it is now. The "Alpha" tag has absolutely no value here. It doesn't make the game better. It doesn't mean that the game will be better. So it is pointless to consider it when evaluating a game.
  8. I would prefer them using the money to work on the game instead of leaving it in their pockets and paying 1 guy to work on the game for the next 100 years. But if the one guy is what the playerbase is satisfied with, it is what it will get. This mentality ruined a lot of other games and it will ruin this game, too. People just sitting back and hoping the game will get good by itself while telling themselves "this is fine!". I haven't said anything about that case and you already come up with excuses. Proof that you are one of the ignorant imbeciles who would find an excuse for the most obvious issues a game has. Every second player is complaining about desync issues and lag, which I also witnessed on streams. All you have to do is read the forums. Haven't you done your research? Research like how they opened preorders for the game claiming mid 2016 that the game will come out in 2016 implying the game is done with only polishing and testing left to do? Or how they show placeholders in gameplay videos and claim the features like skills are done while they are not? Or how they say we get Alpha access, but what we are doing here is neither Alpha testing nor playing the Alpha version? That kind of research? Yeah I did that. Wait, so if the game is awful and worse than any other $60 game out there, it is not over priced as long as you "do research"? What kind of bs argument is that? If the game is terrible and full of bugs and issues, has barely any content, it is not even close to be worth 150 bucks. No matter if you know if it has all those issues or not. That has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the game. With this lag fest and only 3 maps EfT right now is not even worth 20 bucks. Thats one of those idiocity arguments from people who have absolutely no clue how the world outside of their basement works. Anybody who starts a new company can go to a bank to get funds for it. That's literally what everybody does. You don't need overpriced funds from the mass to make it work. And certainly not $150. Besides, you contradict yourself here. Is BSG now a small company (to justify the slow development) and hence doesn't need much money but charges more than AAA titles? Or is BSG a big company (to justify the high price) that gets no work done? Either case makes the development awful. The slow development pace and not getting any work done does not justify the high price tag. That's what it comes down to. What faith? I can name you tons of games which made plenty of empty promises to make sales during early access and then ended up with nothing after all those sales. You probably know them all yourself. So far EfT is one of them. Name me one game that was garbage early one with as many issues as EfT and such slow development, which became good and popular at release. Just one. I don't know any. Either the games stay unpopular garbage forever or never get released to begin with. Why should I have faith here then? The developers lied about the state of the game to sell more of it before people realize how sh*tty it was. It's like they knew people wouldn't buy it if they knew the game has none of the promised features yet. They don't have faith in their own game. Why should I? Better than a naive brat that thinks a game will magically become better if nobody points out the flaws with it and it's development. If garbage is what you want, garbage is exactly what you will get. That is how customer relations work. If you are satisfied with a release in 2025 after paying full price for the game, there is no reason for them to work faster on it. People like you are ruining games with that. Disgusting. L O L After purchasing a product I have no right to complain that it doesn't get delivered as it was promised. Right... You go to a place to eat. After paying for the most expensive meal in advance you sit down and wait for it. Hours later you get only 20% of it, because they only have 1 guy running the entire place. "Should have done the research first." he tells you. You don't complain about it and just leave. That is the type of pathetic person you are. If I have no right to complain because the game is still "Alpha" (just labeled as such), why do you have a right to praise this garbage? You know, a game doesn't necessarily becomes better later on, I have seen many many games become worse as development went on. Even now I see people complaining that the scav mode made the game worse. What if the game becomes even worse upon release with even more issues and problems than now? Ever thought about that? You see this "Alpha" label as some kind of magical promise that the game will be good and all issues will be resolved. Wake up, that was and is never the case. Now you seem to have done such an amazing research, so answer me this one simple question (including source): How many developers does BSG have? I see people like you constantly arguing about how small of a company BSG is, yet none of you is ever providing a number as if you don't know yourself. They are charging a much higher price than AAA titles for this game, which is the only thing that matters. If a game is up for grabs and is released to the public (which EfT is by allowing everybody who wants to play to get into the game by just paying), ratings and reviews of this game are justified as the public deserves to know if this game is worth buying or not. And for more than 20 bucks this game is certainly not worth buying right now. Criticism, especially negative, is always justified.
  9. Maybe you don't understand them? Do you see where Alpha testing in the software testing cycle is? It is a common misconception that Alpha testing is some sort of early software. Alpha testing usually takes place when the product is nearly done to see how the entire product is accepted by a small group of potential customers. What we have in EfT has NOTHING to do with Alpha testing. It is a released (since anybody can buy access to it) but incomplete game full of issues. Anybody who has studied anything computer science related will confirm you that. Nowadays developers call their shitty games Alpha/Beta so the players come up with excuses why their games suck so they avoid bad media. That is the entire point of it. As for the topic, I fully agree. EfT feels like one of those forever in development games leading nowhere. They have shown 2 maps in the trailer and 3 maps is what there is 1,5 years later. In that time they achieved almost nothing considering the $150 pricetag. With just 1 map per year this game will be done by 2025. For those funds they can easily afford more map designers, but they won't care if 1 map per year is what the people here are satisfied with. If you guys are happy with this, this is exactly what you will get. Always remember that. I personally issued a refund via pp. Not staying in this mess of a "game".
  10. Release $60 game with ongoing development and a few promised features missing => omg sh*t game!!!11 Release $150 buggy/broken tech demo with ongoing development and hardly any of the promised features but put an "Alpha" tag in front of it => omg sick and amazing game!!!11 - Gaming community in a nutshell Played this trash for about 3 days and got cancer from all the laggy encounters. Other than the tech in form of graphics, sounds and customization, there is literally nothing good about this game. All the possibilities and simulated movements of the character are nice and all, but they are nothing but eye candy for useless choices. Using only 2 hands to control an entire char with all those controls like adjustible crouching etc. feels like I am controlling a Mech and not a human. Nobody will ever use those actively if they actually want to survive. Same goes for the entire Weapon Mod system - looks nice at first but turns out to be useless after the first 1 or 2 times you lose your weapon after hours of modding and testing them out. So the game not only is technically flawed, but also has conceptional problems which ultimately hurt the nice features of the game. And don't even get me started on the development. It has been 1,5 years since the release of the trailer which shows even more than what there is now. For such a high price this is absolutely unacceptable. Even the terms of service for this game are shady af. No refunds in any case, payment is just deposit and not game purchase, they can ban you for no reason etc. etc... Issued a refund via PayPal from this garbage game. It will never be good. Certainly not anytime soon. It's just one of those forever in development games where you pay a company to make plans for the next scam while one guy is occasionally patching the game to make it seem like they are making progress. Clown fiesta. Get real. Don't encourage bs like this.