172 replies to this topic

[Asmosis]

Velba, on 10 October 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

Um... Its a beta, not a finished product. How is it suicide not giving a finished product during a beta? Where is your logic sir?

These days, "open beta" means essentially the same thing as "official release" for F2P games, and MWO has no where near enough content for an offical release. Unless they have everything all ready to go including a quick ramp up to the story part of it, it doesnt offer anything more (quite a bit less really) than the multi-player component of the previous mechwarrior titles as a much higher price tag.

[EgoBreaker]

Where is the press release? Why is the only source of this announcement only at dualshockers.com ?

[Creed Buhallin]

abriael, on 10 October 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

You seem to be rather mad. Yeah. Actually you do. And not just in this post, but overall.

More disappointed, but I'm honestly not sure why you wouldn't expect people to be mad. Honestly, people SHOULD be mad. PGI promised a game that they're not delivering even 10% of, sold people a massively overpriced package, changed the terms of when they would start burning the time people got as part of that package, and are going live with a buggy incomplete mess of a game. Mad is the right response, no matter what internet memes might be drawn up. Honestly, the only reason I'm NOT mad is that I was lucky enough to be in the closed beta and see the mess it was from pretty early on.

abriael, on 10 October 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

There are plenty previews out there, including mine (http://www.dualshock...es-into-battle/). Press isn't held by the NDA for World of Warplanes.

Fair enough.

abriael, on 10 October 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

Only if one doesn't know what he's talking about.

Hey, sure, press right on insulting anyone who gets tired of the game - I'm sure if you keep that up, you'll turn a lot of opinion around.

abriael, on 10 October 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

Another example is War of the Roses, that has just been *released* (IE: not beta) with only 7 maps. And it's a commercial package that you actually have to pay for. From what I've seen of Piranha's plans, this game will at least match that number by actual launch.

They're going to add 3 maps by next week? That's impressive!

No, seriously, stop. They can call it whatever they want to, but it's NOT beta. At the point when you have released your product to the general public and have started taking money for it, you've launched. "Beta" is NOT a state - it's a step in the software development process. If what you're doing doesn't match the structure, definition, and purpose of a beta test, it's not a beta test, no matter how incomplete and buggy. That's what any professional engineer will tell you, and that's the standard I'm going by. It's the standard most people expect. Telling people they should accept an obviously incomplete product because marketing slapped "beta" on the title is simply wrong, and a big part of the reason nobody trusts the gaming "press".

On a final note, you never did answer - I'd expect you to have all kinds of sources for how many maps World of Tanks had at launch?

[Wizard Steve]

Lokust Davion, on 10 October 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

Guys please support PGI and IGP... theyre obviously running out of money and need our help.. please add your donations thru paypal by clicking the founder's program.

You have got to be kidding!

I'm not a charity. I've spent $120 on a game that doesn't work. Now some of that $120 went on persistent items like MC and founders mechs that will ride out the storm and still be around once the devs sort the game out but I do not want my premium time squandered on a game that is unplayable.

[Zogrim]

Quote

theyre obviously running out of money and need our help

Already ? Would be nice to know firstly, how they spent 4kk they have rased from us, founders.

Edited by Zogrim, 10 October 2012 - 09:42 PM.

[abriael]

Creed Buhallin, on 10 October 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

More disappointed,

No, you sound mad, and hateful.

but I'm honestly not sure why you wouldn't expect people to be mad. Honestly, people SHOULD be mad. PGI promised a game that they're not delivering even 10% of

I'll see what they're delivering when it'll be time to deliver. IE: With launch. Only someone that doesn't know anything about this market expects a finished product delivered in beta.

sold people a massively overpriced package

Overpriced by what standards?

changed the terms of when they would start burning the time people got as part of that package, and are going live with a buggy incomplete mess of a game. Mad is the right response, no matter what internet memes might be drawn up. Honestly, the only reason I'm NOT mad is that I was lucky enough to be in the closed beta and see the mess it was from pretty early on.

considering that the game is already very enjoyable in beta and that the advantages received with premium times don't go away when it expires (the money and assets it made you acquire remain), the above paragraph is entirely unjustified.

Hey, sure, press right on insulting anyone who gets tired of the game - I'm sure if you keep that up, you'll turn a lot of opinion around.


So let me understand, "you don't know what you're talking about" is an insult? Lol. Please.

I don't really need to turn your opinion around. The mad and the hateful are very common in MMO forums, it comes with the fact that a certain very entitled part of the gaming community thinks that playing games gives them any real knowledge about developing then, and that they somehow "know better" by divine illumination. Of course they don't, and everyone knows that they won't be turned around, no matter what.

They're going to add 3 maps by next week? That's impressive!

No. They're going to add 3 maps by launch, alongside a whole lot of features.

No, seriously, stop. They can call it whatever they want to, but it's NOT beta. At the point when you have released your product to the general public and have started taking money for it, you've launched.

I'm sorry to burst an enormous and self-complacent bubble, but the term "beta" (and even more so "open beta") has a massive amount of variation between different developers, genres and publishers. As a matter of fact opening the cash shop during the open beta phase is very, very common between F2P MMORPG. There's nothing wrong about it, since it's not mandatory, and MWO has one of the most unintrusive cash shops in the industry.

"Beta" is NOT a state - it's a step in the software development process. If what you're doing doesn't match the structure, definition, and purpose of a beta test, it's not a beta test, no matter how incomplete and buggy. That's what any professional engineer will tell you, and that's the standard I'm going by. It's the standard most people expect.

Aside from the fact that a large percentage of "professional engineers" know nothing at all of game development, any "professional" game developer will tell you that the term "beta" and "open beta" varies massively between companies and genres, and that having a "standard" puts you automatically in the wrong, since there's no real standard.

Telling people they should accept an obviously incomplete product because marketing slapped "beta" on the title is simply wrong, and a big part of the reason nobody trusts the gaming "press".

Considering that the product is still in beta and no one is forced to pay a dime to enjoy it, there's nothing wrong to call it a beta. I'm afraid you're a tad behind with the times and out of touch with the market. Opening the cash shop in open beta has become a quite normal and widely accepted option since free to play has become the norm.

Many of people do trust the gaming press because they're at the very least in touch with the market and know what they're talking about. You simply don't.

Bolded my answers since the forum's quote system is screwed.

Bottomline, is the game ready to go into open beta with a successful turnout? Now it isn't (i said it at the very beginning of the thread), due to the bugs introduced with the latest patch and the fact that the film grain and the locked direct x 11 seriously impair the looks of the game, worsening the possible initial reaction of those that will try the beta once the floodgates are open. But that's an entirely marketing-related area, that doesn't change the fact that charging during a beta when you don't charge for the beta is entirely justfied.

PGI seems to be confident to solve those kinks by next week, and realistically they are solvable. If they are solved, and visuals get brought back at least to the standards we had before the latest patch, MWO is an entirely viable product for a beta, and has the potential to impress most of those that will try it with no real problem.

Haters gonna hate. And honestly someone that didn't invest into the game at all for some reason getting mad for those that did is kind of ridiculous. This time around I actually purchased my founders package while I didn't really need to (I could have just waited for the usual press package that normally comes when it's time to review a game, and i actually got selected for beta access before i bought my founders), as I like to support projects with potential (like Star Citizen, for which I just pledged), and this one has a lot of potential. I already had a lot of fun in the closed beta and I'm quite sure I'll have even more in open. Considering the value of the assets provided with the package, I don't regret the purchase one bit.

You say that asking customers for optional financial support before releasing a finished product is somewhat "wrong". Sorry, but the times have changed, and kickstarter would have a word with you.

Nowadays developers charge even before a project has been *started*. And guess what? It's a great thing, as it allows the production of some games that the big publishers of this industry would never accept.

Edited by abriael, 10 October 2012 - 10:31 PM.

[Creed Buhallin]

And fanbois will scream and lob silly internet memes at anyone who expects a decent product, and it will go the exact same route it always goes, and we'll have another object lesson in why large games are hard to do and slapping "F2P" on a crappy product isn't a guaranteed money press.

I object to the beta term because it's inaccurate and misleading. It has nothing to do with beta testing. The fact that it's turned into a marketing term instead of a software term doesn't mean the current use is right - honestly, it's an utterly meaningless term in marketing-speak.

But it doesn't matter what you call it. They open it up, they start taking people's money, and people rightly expect a finished product for it. What you CALL it doesn't matter - saying it's beta is not an excuse. Here's the real test - if they called it launch with plans for future enhancements, what would you think? If a friend showed you the game without telling you "It's in beta", what would you think? The label has meaning because of what it means in a software context. It defines a stage of the development cycle. Slapping it on something that doesn't even remotely fit that as an excuse for the incomplete state of your product is dishonest. I really couldn't care less whether or not others have been just as dishonest - it's still dishonest.

Do some games start charging while it's still beta? Yes - and the successful ones do it during something closer to an actual, real beta test, with a complete core game and fundamental features in place that at least slightly resemble what the developers have been promising. The failures throw out a muddled, buggy, unplayable mess of a game that fails to deliver on any of its promises, flop, and vanish. It's pretty obvious which this one is. Go back and take a look at the initial dev blogs - Community Warfare, Information Warfare, Role Warfare, Mech Warfare. How much of that have we got? Nothing is even remotely present except for Mech Warfare, and it's still missing a good 20% of the features that actually contribute to tactical depth.

Maybe you're right - maybe I am a hater. But I didn't start there. I was incredibly excited about the game the devs presented. What we got? Nothing even remotely resembling it. So keep right on about how I should start giving PGI money for this incomplete mess than any self-respecting engineer would be embarrassed and ashamed to hand to a paying customer. You're changing nobody's mind.

[Asmosis]

If they want to persist with calling the F2P release a beta, they should offer a reset of premium/founder subs at the end of beta period. Theres a laundry list of features i'd want to see at least on the horizon before committing founder level dollars to the game.

Dont get me wrong, i love battletech and will play this over rival games like uh that other one. but probably not until next year with the current content plan.

[UnoPoo]

The Words "Open Beta" tells me that we will get our Premium/Founder time after it goes Live...The word Beta tells me that it is not something worth buying yet since it isn't finished. I'm thinking that they will reset the whole game one last time when it goes live (or very close...like 3 days or something) otherwise the possible lawsuits would be...

That said...if they can't fix the Huge bugs that the last patch just released (lag, un-armored/un-ammo'd...etc) then they might already have huge problems in the company. ;< Maybe more people = more reports so that they can fix the bugs and I will be happy at that. ;> Time will let us know.

[abriael]

Creed Buhallin, on 10 October 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

And fanbois will scream and lob silly internet memes at anyone who expects a decent product, and it will go the exact same route it always goes, and we'll have another object lesson in why large games are hard to do and slapping "F2P" on a crappy product isn't a guaranteed money press.

I object to the beta term because it's inaccurate and misleading. It has nothing to do with beta testing. The fact that it's turned into a marketing term instead of a software term doesn't mean the current use is right - honestly, it's an utterly meaningless term in marketing-speak.

But it doesn't matter what you call it. They open it up, they start taking people's money, and people rightly expect a finished product for it. What you CALL it doesn't matter - saying it's beta is not an excuse. Here's the real test - if they called it launch with plans for future enhancements, what would you think? If a friend showed you the game without telling you "It's in beta", what would you think? The label has meaning because of what it means in a software context. It defines a stage of the development cycle. Slapping it on something that doesn't even remotely fit that as an excuse for the incomplete state of your product is dishonest. I really couldn't care less whether or not others have been just as dishonest - it's still dishonest.

Do some games start charging while it's still beta? Yes - and the successful ones do it during something closer to an actual, real beta test, with a complete core game and fundamental features in place that at least slightly resemble what the developers have been promising. The failures throw out a muddled, buggy, unplayable mess of a game that fails to deliver on any of its promises, flop, and vanish. It's pretty obvious which this one is. Go back and take a look at the initial dev blogs - Community Warfare, Information Warfare, Role Warfare, Mech Warfare. How much of that have we got? Nothing is even remotely present except for Mech Warfare, and it's still missing a good 20% of the features that actually contribute to tactical depth.

Maybe you're right - maybe I am a hater. But I didn't start there. I was incredibly excited about the game the devs presented. What we got? Nothing even remotely resembling it. So keep right on about how I should start giving PGI money for this incomplete mess than any self-respecting engineer would be embarrassed and ashamed to hand to a paying customer. You're changing nobody's mind.

The term "beta" is what the industry decides it is, not what you decide it is. At the moment the open beta of MechWarrior Online fully falls within what the industry defines a beta in its wide range of different definitions, as start charging OPTIONALLY during the open beta is now more the norm than the exception.
It's an option that everyone is entirely entitled to ignore, so you raging about it doesn't make the slightest sense.

Again, at the moment the industry is veering towards charging people optionally even before a project starts. Kickstarter is being very successful and is breathing new life in developer/publisher/customers relationships.

Also, I'm afraid "unplayable" doesn't mean what you think it means. The game is perfectly "playable". You can maneuver your mech, fire your weapons, kill people, accumulate progression in the form of experience and cbills. Every feature that makes the game "playable" is functional. There's no real issue that prevents it from being playable.

The features you name are still going to come between here and the official launch (that Bullock strongly hinted a couple months ago at being this coming spring). They have not been canceled. That's why it's a beta.

Not only you're a hater, but like most haters you overdramatize your opinion by using hyperbolic terms that void it of any realistic approach. A hater's mind cannot be changed because a hater is not being rational, and rational, realistic arguments work on him like a water balloon on a brick wall.

Haters are also very keen on strawman arguments, and you're not free from that flaw.

Quote

So keep right on about how I should start giving PGI money for this incomplete mess than any self-respecting engineer would be embarrassed and ashamed to hand to a paying customer.

No one is telling you that you should start giving PGI money for this (insert a bunch of hyperbolic and irrantional insults that don't reflect at all the state of the game). As a matter of fact, I'm telling you that you can completely ignore the payment options of the game and play completely for free with no real hitch, as the real money options are (surprisingly) very unintrusive compared to the ussual F2P game. Which makes charging optionally entirely acceptable.

No one is telling you that you should start giving PGI money, simply because you don't need to. At all.

Edited by abriael, 10 October 2012 - 11:43 PM.

[Lufos]

wrong, there are many problems that prevent ppl from playing the game. there are millions and millions of ppl out there with dual core mashines. half of them will just turn their backs on this game once they realise they get like <5fps...who cares about missing features?its about millions of ppl ragequitting due to dual core issues. f2p games need to run on many many engines and attract millions of people. this OB start is a fail, not because of missing features, but the major performance issues for a **** ton of players.

Edited by Lufos, 10 October 2012 - 11:40 PM.

[abriael]

Lufos, on 10 October 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

wrong, there are many problems that prevent ppl from playing the game. there are millions and millions of ppl out there with dual core mashines. half of them will just turn their backs on this game once they realise they get like <5fps...who cares about missing features?its about millions of ppl ragequitting due to dual core issues. f2p games need to run on many many engines and attract millions of people. this OB start is a fail, not because of missing features, but the major performance issues for a **** ton of players.

funny. My secondary computer is a dual core "mashine" (lol) and runs the game without a hitch, of course not at maximum detail, but can't expect outdated PCs to run games based on advanced engines with all the visual glitz. This isn't wow.

The possibility that the game won't run properly on certain combinations of outdated configurations is also part of what a beta is, and a very common problem. It doesn't make the game "unplayable" from a general point of view by any mean or purpose.

Mind you, even fully released PC games often don't run on certain configurations. That's the nature of PC gaming as a developer can't predict every hardware and software combination.

PS: you're inflating numbers, and not by just a little.

Edited by abriael, 10 October 2012 - 11:48 PM.

[Lufos]

i am glad it works for you :-) believe me, i am not alone. the game runs almost fine when you play around with some game files. i just think that a lot of players wont even bother with editing game files to get their game running.

yeah, i am exagerating..guilty. but there are very very many players with dual core mashines. you wouldnt believe how many ppl still run XP. :-) if a game wants millions of players(like WoT) you need to make sure it runs smoothly on a broad range of systems.

Edited by Lufos, 10 October 2012 - 11:55 PM.

[abriael]

EgoBreaker, on 10 October 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

Where is the press release? Why is the only source of this announcement only at dualshockers.com ?

You mean besides being right on the front page of the mechwarrior online official site? Aside from the fact that it has been now reported on several sites, we got it first just because we've been faster and immediately published it as soon as we received it, and since many people were eager to know, I felt appropriate to share the news here.

Press releases are usually not meant for public consumption, and publishing them directly is considered not koshier unless differently specified by the publisher itself. In any case it's now officially announced on the front page (while I'm not sure why they did hours after sending the press release out, but it's not like it doesn't happen often), so I don't see why you'd ask the question?

@Lufos: optimization for PC games is a running process. I'm sure you're not alone. It's statistically impossible for you to be, but I know quite a lot of people running the game on dual core PCs, me included when I use my secondary comp, so it's very much incorrect to say that it doesn't run just because a PC is dual core. Evidently it's a combination of factors, and/or it doesn't run only on certain dual core processors. You or me don't have firm numbers of how many people are affected by the problem. If there's someone that has them, that's Piranha.

Edited by abriael, 10 October 2012 - 11:57 PM.

[Dodger79]

How many open betas have you been part of where there wasn't a wipe before going live? I've participated in open betas for TDU and TDU2 and also in BFBC2 and BF3. The latter ones are a great example of how the term "open beta" is misused as they were more of a demo then a beta. And even in those there was a full wipe before launch.

In MWO there will be no more wipes, premium time starts ticking and they are taking money. No matter how they call it but that is NOT a beta and it is hilarious how many people fell for it just because the current state (which is more of an alpha right now) is clearly incomplete. The software might be in a beta status, but the game as a product clearly isn't.

And what my problem is with the premium time starting to count? Other then some have said the game is not perfectly playable. I'm a player fromEurope and currently suffering under extreme lags, disconnects and timeouts, so i can't play the game. If i can play sometimes the round simply does not end because the servers are messed up. That means i can't earn XP and C-Bills. And you can be sure that i do not want my paid multiplier working with zero due to problems the game has...

[Lufos]

@abriael: it is still too early. they should at least work like 2-4 more weeks on increasing the performance/adding more option to the ingame settings and such.

lets just hope for the best. the patch next week will be a monster i guess =)

[Creed Buhallin]

abriael, on 10 October 2012 - 11:29 PM, said:

The term "beta" is what the industry decides it is, not what you decide it is.

You're correct on this - our difference of opinion comes on which "industry" we're talking about. Is it the engineers who originally developed the term? Or is it the marketing flacks who have appropriated it and twisted it into a way to excuse failure? You obviously think that letting marketing redefine the term is just fine - I don't. It means what it means, regardless of how the term has been perverted.

abriael, on 10 October 2012 - 11:29 PM, said:

Again, at the moment the industry is veering towards charging people optionally even before a project starts. Kickstarter is being very successful and is breathing new life in developer/publisher/customers relationships.

And it's also in the process of redefining its structure in order to curtail vapor products, unrealistic promises, and outright deception. I have my deep concerns about crowdfunding for software - it's a field almost inherently defined by overrun cost, underdelivered products, and requirements failures. There's still a difference between crowdfunding - which is essentially offering people the chance to give you money based on little more than hope - and directly selling an incomplete product.

abriael, on 10 October 2012 - 11:29 PM, said:

Also, I'm afraid "unplayable" doesn't mean what you think it means. The game is perfectly "playable". You can maneuver your mech, fire your weapons, kill people, accumulate progression in the form of experience and cbills. Every feature that makes the game "playable" is functional. There's no real issue that prevents it from being playable.

Really? So incredibly poor frame rates, massive lag spikes, entire games dropping, lockups every time someone exits the client... all those reports don't qualify as unplayable? <shrug> Keep telling people that.

abriael, on 10 October 2012 - 11:29 PM, said:

The features you name are still going to come between here and the official launch (that Bullock strongly hinted a couple months ago at being this coming spring). They have not been canceled. That's why it's a beta.

Why would they even both with an official launch? What's the point? If they can charge people as they wish while in beta, without ever having to actually commit to a complete or functional product, why ever officially launch? Really, at this point, what's the difference? Beyond a press release, how exactly would you know that Monday was beta, and Tuesday was launch?

You continue to think that what they call it matters. Without any actual engineering weight to the term - since the marketing guys have defined it all away - calling it "beta" is utterly meaningless. I can tell the difference in my work between an alpha test and a beta, and between beta and a released product. From one day to the next, you could know where the project was. Where MWO is concerned, if you can't tell me what will change from the last day of beta to the first day of release, then there is no difference. For instance, I can tell you what the change from "closed beta" to "open beta" is, in some detail - can you do the same for "open beta" to "release"?

If not buying into meaningless marketing terminology that borders on the Orwellian makes me a hater, fine. If being disappointed that a term in my field has been corrupted beyond any useful meaning makes me a hater, then yeah - I'm a hater. And I'm even OK with that.

[abriael]

Dodger79, on 10 October 2012 - 11:55 PM, said:

How many open betas have you been part of where there wasn't a wipe before going live? I've participated in open betas for TDU and TDU2 and also in BFBC2 and BF3. The latter ones are a great example of how the term "open beta" is misused as they were more of a demo then a beta. And even in those there was a full wipe before launch.

Quite a lot actually. Basically every free to play MMO wipes only during closed beta and with the passage between closed and open. Wipes after open beta are a characteristic of Pay to Play or Buy to Play titles, while free to play normally has no wipe between open beta and release.

Mind you, some times even Pay to Play titles have no wipe between open beta and release. TERA is an example.

Quote

And what my problem is with the premium time starting to count? Other then some have said the game is not perfectly playable. I'm a player fromEurope and currently suffering under extreme lags, disconnects and timeouts, so i can't play the game. If i can play sometimes the round simply does not end because the servers are messed up. That means i can't earn XP and C-Bills. And you can be sure that i do not want my paid multiplier working with zero due to problems the game has...

I'm from Europe too, I suffer no such problems (besides the command console lag that they already said will be solved by when open beta starts). So it most probably doesn't derive from being in Europe, as much as your particular location and/or internet connection.

[abriael]

Creed Buhallin, on 11 October 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:

You're correct on this - our difference of opinion comes on which "industry" we're talking about. Is it the engineers who originally developed the term? Or is it the marketing flacks who have appropriated it and twisted it into a way to excuse failure? You obviously think that letting marketing redefine the term is just fine - I don't. It means what it means, regardless of how the term has been perverted.

Sorry to have to point it out, but without the "marketing flacks", the "engineers" that you so much seem to love (and that you seem not to know at all, by the way) wouldn't have a job.

And it's also in the process of redefining its structure in order to curtail vapor products, unrealistic promises, and outright deception. I have my deep concerns about crowdfunding for software - it's a field almost inherently defined by overrun cost, underdelivered products, and requirements failures. There's still a difference between crowdfunding - which is essentially offering people the chance to give you money based on little more than hope - and directly selling an incomplete product.

You mean like any kind of investment? When we'll see a major crowd funded product turning into vaporware, that concern will have any meaning. At the moment the industry is going that way, and it has plenty positive aspects. It's not like anyone is forced in any way to invest in crowd funding a game. If you believe in a product you do, if you don't, you don't. Yay freedom.

Really? So incredibly poor frame rates, massive lag spikes, entire games dropping, lockups every time someone exits the client... all those reports don't qualify as unplayable? <shrug> Keep telling people that.

Today I played about 20 matches. Looks quite playable to me. The only problem I encountered was the lockup at the exit, that doesn't nearly qualify as making the game "unplayable", the rest of the issues don't make the game unplayable. It means it still has issues for some people. "unplayable" is a whole different beast. Again, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Why would they even both with an official launch? What's the point? If they can charge people as they wish while in beta, without ever having to actually commit to a complete or functional product, why ever officially launch? Really, at this point, what's the difference? Beyond a press release, how exactly would you know that Monday was beta, and Tuesday was launch?

They'll bother with an official launch because it's how it's done. It's a good way to tell your customers "now the product is finished".

You continue to think that what they call it matters. Without any actual engineering weight to the term - since the marketing guys have defined it all away - calling it "beta" is utterly meaningless. I can tell the difference in my work between an alpha test and a beta, and between beta and a released product. From one day to the next, you could know where the project was. Where MWO is concerned, if you can't tell me what will change from the last day of beta to the first day of release, then there is no difference. For instance, I can tell you what the change from "closed beta" to "open beta" is, in some detail - can you do the same for "open beta" to "release"?

You're applying entirely personal and subjective meanings to the term "Open beta", "closed beta" and "release". as a matter of fact you don't decide what they mean. Every single developer does, and every single developer is different.

In most F2P MMO the changes between the last days of open beta and release are just a few bug fixes.

If not buying into meaningless marketing terminology that borders on the Orwellian makes me a hater, fine. If being disappointed that a term in my field has been corrupted beyond any useful meaning makes me a hater, then yeah - I'm a hater. And I'm even OK with that.

Considering that the term "beta" never had a set in stone meaning, and that always varied between different developers (mind you, while you call it "your field" you definitely don't sound like a game developer, and if you're not a game developer, this is not "Your field") whether you're buying it or not is irrelevant.

The whole point is that you're not forced to buy anything.

[Robottiimu2000]

I just want to raise my voice of concern about the unfinished nature of the product going open beta (which in itself is fine) but the fact we start losing our paid subscription during this time imho feels a bit like robbery of the good will (and the money) of the founders. Though I'm hoping everything goes smoothly and fine and I find my concerns to be unnecessary.

thanks.