Another game I am following the development of recently gave a targeted release date in 2021 but they noted that they do not plan on launching "feature complete".
Has VR ever mentioned the possibility of launching Pantheon in a non-feature complete status?
If not, when does that become a consideration? after 7 years of development? 10? 12? There has to be a line there somewhere or it will die on the vine.
Ya, I guess "feature complete" is defined by each individual team. It seems like the stance here has always been it will take as long as it needs to (at least the last couple years). Is there ever a point that changes? "Features" can be added/tweaked/balanced until the cows come home.
I think so Zorkon. I guess "feature complete" means we've got everything working for this area that represents a major aspect of gameplay as envisioned for the end of beta. Of course, we still have at least one more PA and all of alpha and beta to refine those systems. I would think that major elements that affect gameplay will have a priority right now and things like class animations can be added as we get closer to launch since they are really just cosmetic.
While I agree the launch is very important to get right as Vanguard sadly demonstrated. WoW also demonstrated it does not need to be 100% perfect. I seem to recall not being able to loot for days after launch and this did not kill WoW. I am happy I do not need to be the one deciding at what level of completeness is enough.
At the moment I am fine waiting.
It's an interesting question to pose, but like others, I hope VR do not consider launching Pantheon in a state where anything significant could be considered missing.
It's another modern practice that, in theory, could work, but in reality, is just abused. Games have started to become 'Live Services' that, in theory, sound like a positive, but, in practice, are just incomplete, buggy and badly designed such that they require continual updates and additions. The games start bad and never settle, so even if a player base *could* be formed around what is liked, it doesn't as even those parts keep changing.
As for the definition of 'feature complete', yes, of course things can still keep changing in any project, but, to me, feature complete means everything that was promised and everything that comprises that style of game is included. An example for me of what would make Pantheon incomplete, but launchable, would to leave out, something like salvaging, or even trading or crafting.
To be clear, I really hope they don't. But if people keep banging on about how long they are taking, they might, I suppose, be tempted...
Pantheon can launch with some things missing. Races, classes, whole continents can be added after launch. One of the advantages to a game with very slow progression is that if you have no "endgame" content at launch it won't interfere with anyone actually playing for months or a lot longer.
But what you do have needs to very well done and relatively bug free. Something that players will enjoy and not consider the partially completed mess with potential that was the Vanguard launch.
Reasonable people can disagree on what can be left out and still have a real game that can greatly impress anyone playing it. Most of us will say housing is "nice" but not essential. Disposalist put trading and crafting in that category whereas I would think of these as closer to core features. But I would happily accept a good launch without these in a year over a good launch with these in three years.
Core Feature Complete is a must. Otherwise you just end up with buggy code and constantly putting out fires as well as the "No man`s Sky" bad press effect. Secondary features that do not interact with the adventuring sphere can be delayed but anything like crafting that is intended to be a cog in the adventuing sphere apparatus needs the be in. What can and likely will be incomplete at launch is content. You dont need a ton of content options in each level range to have a functioning game though you may need multiple concurent copies of zones to make the game playable due to the mob to player ratios. The rest of the content can be unlock over time.
Trasak said:... you may need multiple concurent copies of zones to make the game playable due to the mob to player ratios...
If you're referring to instances they have already said there will be no instances. If you just mean multiple zones of the same level range, then I agree. What they CAN do is increase spawn rate based on the number of players logged in though, if that were a problem.
disposalist said:It's an interesting question to pose, but like others, I hope VR do not consider launching Pantheon in a state where anything significant could be considered missing.
It's another modern practice that, in theory, could work, but in reality, is just abused. Games have started to become 'Live Services' that, in theory, sound like a positive, but, in practice, are just incomplete, buggy and badly designed such that they require continual updates and additions. The games start bad and never settle, so even if a player base *could* be formed around what is liked, it doesn't as even those parts keep changing.
As for the definition of 'feature complete', yes, of course things can still keep changing in any project, but, to me, feature complete means everything that was promised and everything that comprises that style of game is included. An example for me of what would make Pantheon incomplete, but launchable, would to leave out, something like salvaging, or even trading or crafting.
To be clear, I really hope they don't. But if people keep banging on about how long they are taking, they might, I suppose, be tempted...
GOOGLE STADIA
I think the closest thing to being non-feature complete that was ever mentioned was in regards to the bard and necromancer being released after launch. This has also been changed to they will be in at launch from my understanding.
Otherwise, I am pretty sure that Pantheon has never mentioned anything about releasing in this state or releasing with specific content that is in this state. I think that the fact they are still holding off on pushing into alpha is also evidence that points to them releasing into stages as fully developed as possible.
A game only gets one market release, and therefore one chance appeal to its target audience. Things have to be as close to "perfect" as possible at this time to leave a good lasting impression. As someone mentioned above a successful launch is important for how well a game is received and it also more cost-efficient to get right on day one. Otherwise, you have a situation like Final Fantasy which you have to remake and overhaul.
Well the future of a game is decided during the first few weeks after launch because the number of players goes brutally from 0 to to several (hundred) thousands in a few days.
As all these players came to "test" the game, if they don't find what they hoped to find, they leave as fast as they came and never come back. This movement up and down can be massive and very fast as showed f.ex Starwars the Old Republic. This example showed btw that even a quite polished and bugfree release is no guarantee of success - if the gameplay is not appealing or the social relations weak to non existent, the number of players crashes down as fast as if the game was bugged and incomplete (like Vanguard).
So the "feature complete" is really a very relative largely undefined concept. I would say that it must be as "feature complete" as necessary to create during the first 1 or 2 weeks that elusive impression that the game is "fun" and worth to spend some time and money. Once the player base is stabilised at some number and this number allows the game to survive economically, there is always time to add features to prevent a too fast attrition.
Of course an attrition happens in every game but in a successfully launched game it will be slow enough to allow for further development introducing "new" features.
lutorin said:Well the future of a game is decided during the first few weeks after launch because the number of players goes brutally from 0 to to several (hundred) thousands in a few days.
At the rate this has been progressing, unless there are some Very drastic changes, the future of the game is already decided.
When the funding is drying up, does VR decide to push it to release early or keep milking what donations they do get and keep drawing this thing out for years? People are already losing faith in the team.
At the rate development is going I dont see a scenario that this game survives without being pushed out early in a non-feature complete status.
Philo said:At the rate development is going I dont see a scenario that this game survives without being pushed out early in a non-feature complete status.
A magical publisher would have to swoop in.
philo said:lutorin said:Well the future of a game is decided during the first few weeks after launch because the number of players goes brutally from 0 to to several (hundred) thousands in a few days.
At the rate this has been progressing, unless there are some Very drastic changes, the future of the game is already decided.
When the funding is drying up, does VR decide to push it to release early or keep milking what donations they do get and keep drawing this thing out for years? People are already losing faith in the team.
At the rate development is going I dont see a scenario that this game survives without being pushed out early in a non-feature complete status.
Not sure how many times the devs need to say that they are already funded through beyond releasing the complete game.
Since we are in pre-Alpha, of course they aren't going to put a date on that, but I'm sure they have estimates good enough for them to confidently know that they have money enough already to pay staff to get there.
Be depressed and negative if you like, but unless you have some knowledge everyone else doesn't have you have no real reason to be that way apart from your own paranoia, no?
Actually, try not to be depressed and negative. It serves no purpose other than to potentially spread that paranoia and needlessly, negatively effect the community.
Ranarius said:Trasak said:... you may need multiple concurent copies of zones to make the game playable due to the mob to player ratios...
If you're referring to instances they have already said there will be no instances. If you just mean multiple zones of the same level range, then I agree. What they CAN do is increase spawn rate based on the number of players logged in though, if that were a problem.
Instancing of entire outdoor zones is different the building the game based around instanced dungeons and raid content. It is not ideal by any means but if they only have time to make 2 zones in the 35-45 level range and you have 3000 players clumped up in that level range instancing or sharding outdoor zones is a lesser sin than crashing due to having 100+ players fighting for the same spawns.
This is of course in the context of the OP asking what is feature complete and when could the game be launched before it is truly finished. Sharding outdoor zones could give us a functioning game early if there is not enough content in the level ranges to have a healthy, functioning game.
disposalist said:Not sure how many times the devs need to say that they are already funded through beyond releasing the complete game.
That was stated a couple years back on Facebook supposedly.
The amount of times we have been told something and not have it be the reality makes me skeptical.
The last official statement we have gotten on these forums was that series A funding was complete which allows VR to get into pre alpha stage.
We never got confirmation of series B funding.
If they are funded through release then there has to be a timeline for release. Money doesnt last indefinitely regardless of how long it takes. The longer it takes the more funding is required to pay people's salaries.
Some people's perspectives come off as quite naive.
philo said:disposalist said:Not sure how many times the devs need to say that they are already funded through beyond releasing the complete game.
That was stated a couple years back on Facebook supposedly.
The quote from 2018 on Facebook was the following -- "Funding isn't a problem, no. We have a set pace and current funding has allowed us to build the game to this point and can be continued through to launch." -- I would like to point out that this was well before the entire year of 2019 was used on 'Project Faerthale'.
Going off of the Brad Q&A from Feb 2019 he said -- "we will also need further investment and/or support from publishers and investors which would allow us to accelerate." -- I don't think he or the team really saw the project still not being in PA5/Alpha by now, let alone nearly a year ago.
philo said:Money doesnt last indefinitely regardless of how long it takes. The longer it takes the more funding is required to pay people's salaries.
That's the main reason I am, as you said, optimistic for an amazing publisher to partner up and make this game a reality. Being indie is cool for street cred, but I think all of us would like to be playing this game sooner rather than never.