dorotea said: This has been traumatic for you. It leaves you with all the problems that caused you to switch to 247 - and no 247 to hope to bail you out. Over-optimistic as that hope may have been. You might consider switching modes to a more ...urgent .... development schedule with a real goal of release a lot faster than you had been moving, albeit with fewer features. Although NOT shooting for release until the game is in good enough shape to do well. Question - are you going to switch to focus more on getting the game out as soon as reasonable feasible for success at the cost of having some features you want - and we want - not ready yet? Or - perhaps better wording - What is VR going to do to overcome the problems that led them to switch to 247 in the first place?
This is pretty much what my question is too. And honestly I'd pay a monthly sub to help test as long as the game is in a somewhat playable state.
Exarch said: Will there be discussion of a proper way to increase funding? I/E some mind of subscription that can upgrade our current funding level and possibly give small in game rewards for launch. Maybe a few different subscription levels even? Obviously no crazy amounts, because that will come off super greedy, but may be $5-20 monthly range to help funding. Or any other ideas you guys or the community may have. Regardless of the decision not everyone is going to be happy. Will you guys hold open polls we can vote on as a community with options for funding that would work for the pantheon team?
Extremely good and relevant questions.
2. Now the important part - a way to both raise cash and entertain the masses. This means us and anyone else they can sell this to. Have non-test sessions just as they were going to do with 247. Monetize these. Have servers that echo the test server available full time (subject to the usual times when they need to be taken down for maintenance, patches and the like). Let anyone play these for a subscription charge. Any pledge level - people that have not pledged. Totally abandon the intent to delay alpha until the game is so built up and polished that it will it will be a shining city on a hill greatly impressing all players even at the alpha stage. Shift gears. Focus on raising more cash now.
I do agree with you here Dorotea and think this may be a good idea to raise perhaps significant cash and right now. I hope VR explores this.
The danger of course is that the game, as is, is not nearly ready with enough zones, races, classes and overall content to make it a good experience for these new people. The big fear is that negative reaction from thousands of people could occur and I'm not sure VR can take another massive and very public PR hit.
Although I think it is great news I do believe this may be the last throw of the dice. It is clear they do not have enough finances or they would have never even entertained 24/7. I suspect the hope is with NDA lifting and alpha testers getting small chunks of access it will build up hype and secure external investment.
I firmly believe more money from the backers won't be enough to get even a smaller version of Pantheon into existence in any realistic timeframe although I do agree with Dorotea's idea.
Adrenicus said:
Although I think it is great news I do believe this may be the last throw of the dice. It is clear they do not have enough finances or they would have never even entertained 24/7. I suspect the hope is with NDA lifting and alpha testers getting small chunks of access it will build up hype and secure external investment.
I firmly believe more money from the backers won't be enough to get even a smaller version of Pantheon into existence in any realistic timeframe although I do agree with Dorotea's idea.
I don't think development time matters to most people here as long as it's not another 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 years.
If we knew the timeline, like 2 years? 4 years? That would alleviate that concern so some degree.
I think they've basically started over or have a skeleton crew going through and working as they can and that's prolonging the work from the last overhaul. This is assuming there won't be more overhauls in the future.
I think it's great news to be on track, I'm still worried about what comes in the next 6 months to 1 year. If they just want focused testing, I think being upfront and telling people what they are specifically looking for.
Prevenge said:
It was confirmed again in the Q&A last night, there is enough money to complete and the game and there always was enough money to complete the game.
247 was an attempt to secure additional funding, to accelerate development time.
Bunkus said:
Great change. I hope the Alpha players can help with the data collection that the developers are after.
RedGang said: Your simp reflex is exhausting.
The first rule in the newly revised Official Forum Rules and Guidelines is:
"Show respect to other users at all times. No name-calling, insults, or personal attacks toward anyone."
Everyone should read them. Please do so.
Everyone must follow them.
RedGang said:
Prevenge said:
It was confirmed again in the Q&A last night, there is enough money to complete and the game and there always was enough money to complete the game.
247 was an attempt to secure additional funding, to accelerate development time.
Your simp reflex is exhausting.
They never said they had enough to complete the game, just that they aren't out of money. Big difference. As if they have any idea what the total cost is, when they rarely have a 2-3 month roadmap. But even if that fiction was true it should give us zero comfort, since they said they are many years from completion without additional funding. This doesn't have to happen right this second, but with alpha pledges getting in and that schedule getting ramped up, yea some rando's in the long run is just another way of spreading the word.
Bunkus said:
Great change. I hope the Alpha players can help with the data collection that the developers are after.
By the way to all the alpha pledges out there. You are welcome. It was critics like myself complaining about no alpha access after 10 years, that got you into alpha "early." Ironically some of these same people called us nonconstructive doom and gloomers. I guess it was constructive afterall.
They should let in beta pledges in January. You cannot ethically market a beta access pledge that takes 10+ years to come to fruition.
They should also let a bunch of semi interested randos in. People willing to pay hundreds of dollars for early access, do not represent most school gamers, nor are they very reliable testers anyways, as they've already paid for the privilege to do as they please.
Prevenge said:Adrenicus said: Although I think it is great news I do believe this may be the last throw of the dice. It is clear they do not have enough finances or they would have never even entertained 24/7. I suspect the hope is with NDA lifting and alpha testers getting small chunks of access it will build up hype and secure external investment. I firmly believe more money from the backers won't be enough to get even a smaller version of Pantheon into existence in any realistic timeframe although I do agree with Dorotea's idea.It was confirmed again in the Q&A last night, there is enough money to complete and the game and there always was enough money to complete the game. 247 was an attempt to secure additional funding, to accelerate development time.
Adrenicus said:Prevenge said:I do not doubt this is the case though I suspect that timeframe is 5-10 years plus and would involve a lot of working without an income for people involved on the project. Money is not infinite. There is no way they pitched the 24/7 and such a sudden change in art direction if there was not financial concerns/difficulties. You are just naive to believe otherwise. I'm not trying to hate, of course I want the game but I'm being realistic here. The only thing to save the game is outside investment imo. I think the idea of a subscription immediately allowing access and building towards alpha is a good idea but again it is preying on FOMO and encouraging people to pay to test which is ethically very grey again.Adrenicus said: Although I think it is great news I do believe this may be the last throw of the dice. It is clear they do not have enough finances or they would have never even entertained 24/7. I suspect the hope is with NDA lifting and alpha testers getting small chunks of access it will build up hype and secure external investment. I firmly believe more money from the backers won't be enough to get even a smaller version of Pantheon into existence in any realistic timeframe although I do agree with Dorotea's idea.It was confirmed again in the Q&A last night, there is enough money to complete and the game and there always was enough money to complete the game. 247 was an attempt to secure additional funding, to accelerate development time.
I just wanted to comment on the last part about subs. I think it's a bad idea if that's on the table. The benefit for having subs is having a finished product. I'm worried that if that were to happen there would be pressure to consider the testing to be the game after a while. Games are products for consumption and you provide it to get money, if you don't have the product fit for consumption, should you reap the money it would have generated if it was? I lean towards a heavy no on that. Nothing wrong with investing or putting in capital to get the wheels greased. But this starts to feel less like a marriage and more like playing house if subs happen.
From here .
" we do not provide "Early Access" to Pantheon ... I will go ahead and close this now as it will not be happening and therefore not up for discussion. "
From here. https://seforums.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/3880/subscription-amp-you/view/post_id/61393
" As much as I love the reasons behind this discussion, we have had it before and our answer has not changed, we will be opting for somewhere around the regular subscription fee price ... You are free to discuss this as much as you like but keeping in mind what our answer is on the subject. "
from here .
"
I've said all of this before but it does come up often, so I don't mind re-stating this when necessary:
First, no F2P/pay-to-win/cash shops. Period.
We will either use the good old sub model, or possibly a modular model, where you pay for the game, then each expansion, etc. We're not ready to set that in stone.
As for what the sub would be, the plan is the traditional $15 a month. Yes, we have talked with each other and the community and I think a lot of players, assuming we do make a great game, would pay more. And maybe we do explore premium servers. It's all possible. But, in general, if we go subs, to play Pantheon after the trial period, it would be $15 a month.
"
from here .
" We are not discussing funding at this stage folks, I appreciate the thought behind it but it is not something we are considering at this time nor is it up for discussion. "
---
From these posts above (and likely more), it has been the official policy of Visionary Realms that subscription based early access was not something they were willing to do or even entertain.
However, from here . (as of Nov 17, 2023)
" We are considering different options such as a lower barrier of entry to testing or potentially an early access subscription down the road. "
This indicates a complete shift in their official statements and policies on this issue.
Good job VR for listening and adjusting. I have seen VR take a stance and stick to it because it was the right thing to do. This move, this change of direction has now shown that they take the time to discern the feedback to separate the whining from the legitimate concerns and make a decision based on those concerns... At least that is how I am reading this move. That is a very important skill set when developing any application and I for one am happy that VR has demonstrated there willingness and ability to listen to the feedback and separate the chaff from the grain. As for trust... for me, my trust that VR will do the right thing the for game and the genre has increased. In ANY application development there are often dead branches of code of something that was tried and did not work... was not fully fleshed out... had unanticipated consequences... did not fit in that application... and the list goes on. What separates good product owners from mediocre are those that recognize when a branch is not the right fit for whatever reason and makes the appropriate adjustment. So, I say, good job VR!