Hey,
It is OK if we disagree, but let’s not debate over straw-men.
The networking is working and needs tweaking. The client needs some work, and VR is working on that.
I said fix what needs fixing.
We have been shown that there some playable areas, and some playable races and classes. I suggested that those become items for finishing. A partially playable game MAY be a better way to gain more pledges and more investors than a vision of what is to come. As an example, I want to at least try to main a Druid. If the pet/Druid system is not available for a while in Alpha, so what. I will simply learn a different class – no harm no foul.
You worry about getting a bad rep. from Alpha. How much worse can it get than what Pantheon already seeming has?
My point was, and is, that a smaller playable game may be the better business decision to draw in more money and bide for more time to add and finish other systems and areas. VR will make those decisions.
Check the pulse of the gaming community and it is pounding for something worth playing, while the pulse for Pantheon is barely discernable. I’m not questioning the skill or passion of the Dev’s, nor the passion of this community. Open a window to see what is happening outside.
These are the numbers we have. Maybe a few thousand pre-alpha and better, compared to some ten thousand or so alpha players. We all know that dollars and time are needed.
Will 2023 pre-alpha draw in more pledges, dollar wise, than early 2023 alpha would? MIGHT an alpha start draw more funds to continue development?
That is the question I asking.
And I think VR is answering that question. Pre-alpha continues. The Road to Alpha is public. Cohh has a public stream Soon(TM). I don't get the feeling that VR is unhappy with the way things are going.
I don't necessarily agree with dorotea that we should set expectation for not having an alpha in 2023, but I think having *no* expectations and trusting VR is wise.
Having expectations is just setting yourself up for disappointment. Not trusting VR, as a backer, is self-defeating and unfounded.
I enjoy being involved. I enjoy seeing what VR put out. I enjoy feeling that Joppa, Chris Rowan, Ben, Adam and everyone have things under control. I enjoy not having to worry about the things VR have to worry about.
I understand that people waiting on Alpha or Beta might not feel the same. Being involved in pre-Alpha perhaps makes a difference to how I feel about progress.
I would certainly advise anyone feeling frustrated with the project and not content with what we are seeing to step away for a while.
I completely feel the frustration that OP is going through. I've been following VR and Pantheon since 2015, I have pledged money towards the game in 2018 and now in 2022 we are still in pre-alpha...At this point I don't watch the streams unless there is a big update (which btw what happened to the stream with Cohcarnage??). However, at the same time I understand something ambitious like Pantheon takes a lot of time and effort and I still fully support the vision that VR has for the game. Does anyone know if they have considered Early Access for the game? To me it seems like a great idea for Pantheon (hell even AAA games like Baldurs Gate 3 have early access). It would provide more funding while giving players something to munch on during development. They could even provide early access at a discount, like say $30 to buy, $4.99/month for subscription. And for people like me who already funded the game we would get access since we bought the game (link steam account to pantheon account) and get the first 3 months of sub for free. Thats just an example and I am by no means an expert but its just a thought that came to mind. Just trying to think of some solution to please most parties. Anyways, all in all I still have faith in VR but I fear that they may come into the scene too late...but we shall see. Cheers
Inselberg said:
You worry about getting a bad rep. from Alpha. How much worse can it get than what Pantheon already seeming has?
Pantheon actually has a good reputation, near as I can tell. To know for sure, we'd need opinion polling or at least to aggregate press coverage and social media comments, then compare them against other games (since comments for anything tend to skew negative). Any opinions not made this way are really just personal impressions and not likely to be accurate.
My point was, and is, that a smaller playable game may be the better business decision to draw in more money and bide for more time to add and finish other systems and areas. VR will make those decisions.
I don't agree. Many gamers are listless and they jump from game to game. A bad launch and too many leave after a short while, never to return.
Check the pulse of the gaming community and it is pounding for something worth playing, while the pulse for Pantheon is barely discernable. I’m not questioning the skill or passion of the Dev’s, nor the passion of this community. Open a window to see what is happening outside.
We are clearly not getting the same impression. I see a game that has attracted a large group of followers, that has an active community, and that is growing in awareness. The Devs are keenly aware of your concerns and we all want to be able to play.
The lessons leaned from failed past launches in the industry, like Vanguard, are importan to learn. Launching early and incomplete is a prime way MMOs fail.
The people who put the most pressure to launch early are often the same people who will leave right away because the game isn't ready yet and they don't have the patience to stick around for it to be completed. So giving in to this pressure is destined to fail.
I will add that I have noticed a substantial drop in the negative attitudes of some long time forum posters who have been here for years. I suspect this is because they are in pre-alpha and are seeing substantial progress. I'm not in pre-alpha so I don't know first-hand, but I see this substantial decrease in negativity as a good sign.
I like your passion to see Pantheon released and welcome to the forums.
Counterfleche said:I don't agree. Many gamers are listless and they jump from game to game. A bad launch and too many leave after a short while, never to return.
/agree - An MMO (especially an indie one) needs a great launch or it will be gone in a year or two as costs mount up quickly but revenue falls.
However I do think alpha shouldn't wait on content (e.g. classes/zones/art) as long as the core features are stableish and people can play, then there is value in feedback. Also I am sure myself and many others would be happy to start paying a (reduced?) sub for access to an alpha/test server that was up for longer than the short tests, but would be wiped / down regularly as needed.
Yes, the game is years in the making. Yes I want it now. However, there is no point in trying to build a rocket unless you test every pump, valve, pipe, nut, bolt and everything else to desctruction before you try to launch. If you dont, it will blow up in your face.
VR are currently making the parts that will be used to create and run the game and are not spending huge amounts of time on the content. Once these base elements are in place, tested and are robust and scaleable, then and only then, will the world be filled out. There is no point in creating every island, animal, bug, plant and leaf until your tools are up to the job. Hense the look of the game seems to be progressing slowly. But in reality, it is all of the backend stuff that is getting developed; stuff that we as players rarely get to see. This effort is required so that the actual game content will be easily and quickly created.
VR are trying to tread a fine line between showing us that progress is being made but without spending too many resources on the end content... at this point. Also they do not want to have too many spoilers come out. I am sure that as we move from the backend, engine and tool creation side of things, we will see huge leaps in the generation of game content.
As others have pointed out, its been great to be involved from the early days; games do not generally get this amount of openess. When games do come to peoples attention, a ton of the ground work has already been completed and people see a product that is nearing completion and even then it can take years to fully complete. We have been involved since Pantheon's inception and it has been a long gestation. However, with every update, newsletter and stream, I do see real progress.
Check the pulse of the gaming community and it is pounding for something worth playing, while the pulse for Pantheon is barely discernable.
The Pantheon community wouldn't be so loud in the defense of the game, if they didnt believe in its ideas and its tenets. I have no difficulty with identifying the large pantheon community and their general disagreement with the above view. For one, I have no problem with discerning the beating heart of of this world and the efforts being taken to getting it to fruition and the supporters backing it.
dorotea said:Never forget that the longer they take the more computers and systems are likely to keep improving so that the game they slowly and lovingly craft and release in 2027 will be fantastic by 2022 standards. And an unattractive piece of crap by 2027 standards.
Although I agree conceptually with the longer the developement of something takes, the better the quality is (or should be), this is actually my only real concern with the development taking 10+ years (considering it started in 2016 and likely wont release for another 4+ years). Compatability issues are more likely to arise as we push out further and further into the future. They are already running into FPS issues, which could be from client/server communication due to multicast protocols or differeing network infrastructure that is going from primarily hardware base with basic routing to more software defined access at a very rapid pace in the next few years. ISPs are also going to be transitioning to IPv6 by that time and client system hardware will undoubtedly change 2-3 times between players testing over the course of 10 years.
I have no doubt that the team will be able to adapt as the technology changes, but having to adapt "while" developing is likely adding/will add a lot of complication compared to getting a plan in place and going for those objectives before adding more to the scope of work (which requires circling back to testing cycles whenever something changes in the scope). To address the quote, upgrading the graphics engines wouldn't be too terrible to keep up with modern graphics, but client compatability and FPS may be an issue at that point. I'd be willing to bet that another game releases with vertical mobility (surface climbing) before PRotF goes live, which would diminish the novelty of it in this game (or maybe even stigmatize the feature if the other game is bad - which it likely would be... if it just realeases with emphasis on that feature alone to make a quick $$).
To address the O.P., It's fine to not be excited about all of the information being released. I just accept that they are working on the game and that it will release eventually. I am grateful that they are actively communicating with us and our community is still very active after a considerably long time (relative to the modern gaming community's attention span haha).
Aethor said:How many video games can anyone mention, that were developed (before release, not in continued development after release) for over 10 years, and still were a success
Games with long development times:
Elder Scrolls Online (7 years)
Darkfall Online (8 years)
Spore (8 years)
The Last Guardian (9 years)
Too Human (9 years)
Team Fortress 2 (9 years)
Final Fantasy XV (10 years)
Prey (11 years)
Diablo III (11 years)
Duke Nukem Forever (15 years)
