Far as I understand it, it's sort of a way to weed out the people who buy Alpha access to games, and then proceed to complain about the game, with no regard for the whole Alpha part.Gatx said:
Planetary Annihilation costs 90$ (right now)
- Thread starter RoonMian
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Transparent? Not that much.GoaThief said:
Reasons are acceptable? Not at all. The kickstarter and money donated there is totally unrelated to price they should ask to costumers. And as far as i know the kickstarter didn't mention the fact "no one else will have access to early alpha/beta testing without paying as much as you guys did!"
And than comes the fact this sets a horrible precedent, paying to be able to alpha/beta test? Really? We now have to pay to help devs debug the game?!
And the only people who feel entitled are the kickstarter backers who think everyone should throw money away like they did and the devs who think asking people to pay extra money to help them improve their game is ok.
Please explain how it's anything but transparent. Where is the misleading text or lack of information? Everything is clearly stated as far as I can see.generals3 said:
People who kickstarted the game are also consumers, they aren't investors seeking a percentage return or something similar. Neither did the kickstarter state that alpha/beta access would be free or even open to the general public at all. The precedent of charging for early access was set many years ago and is perfectly viable, to be fair the word "beta" basically means "demo" in this day and age.
It's entirely your opinion that backers threw their money away (I'd wager nearly every single backer views their payment as money well spent), and more importantly how is a developer ASKING (not demanding or bullying) if more people would like to get involved with the develpment process and help with the costs of the game if they missed it the first time around, entitlement? Explain that one to me please. It's offering something to their consumers, people can always say no and wait for the beta or retail... and that is exactly what those with an overblown sense of entitlement should be doing instead of wailing, gnashing their teeth and DEMANDING that the company bend to their unreasonable will. The latter is very much the definition of self-entitled and it's obviously completely different from the former two groups mentioned. I'm still scratching my head at how blinkered some people are seeming to be.
The lack of information is on the steam store page... I have said it like 4 times now. You either have to go to their website, or dig through the posts clicking all the "read more" links and crap to get to the fact that its retail cost is less than half what they are charging now. Companies have been offering early (alpha/beta) access to games for a while if you pre-order a game, and free to play models have been offering things like founder's packs with cash shop currency and extra stuff that also offer early access, but this is the first I have seen that charges you more than double the retail cost of the game (or in the case of free to play games, the cost of the currency you get), so no I wouldn't say there is precedent for it. Not to mention the store page doesn't say that the current price is over double the retail cost of the game unless you go digging...GoaThief said:
How is this a lack of information? The store page:Crozekiel said:
The "read more" on Kickstarter, Early Access and the Price (one click on the above page and still on Steam):
Again, how is that anything but transparent?
Free to play games and their business model have absolutely nothing to do with this retail title, please stop with the bogus comparisons.
Cf: Crozekiel's posts.GoaThief said:
No they aren't consumers, they are donors. They're like those people who give money to build a school and get their name on a bronze plaque. The only difference is that they told you you'd get early access and other stuff instead of a bronze plaque. People who invest in kickstarters do so because they believe that helping people create something + the reward offered is worth their money. This is totally different to a costumer who invests, not in the making of a product, but in the product itself.
And I humbly disagree, i don't think beta = demo. Clearly some gamers have allowed devs to pretend it is but i think we're getting screwed over.
Actually it's more like the opinion of those who think the money they spent justifies ripping off potential costumers who might want early access. They probably feel like they would have thrown their money away if others could get perks they got for more.
Because they somehow believe that their early access is worth 90$?! They sure are very pretentious and full of themselves. (I'll admit the word "entitled" doesn't fit 100% for the devs)
Nono, asking people to pay X $ for a service is just as entitled as other people asking the service for Y$. It's the same, both are basically telling each other their demands. So in both cases the word "entitled" applies just as much (up to you to determine how entitled the devs feel!)
See the above images? Transparency.generals3 said:
Also note on the Steam page in mahooosive blue box/text, "Get instant access and start playing, get involved with this game as it develops". Following that, "By getting early access you are helping us to shape and form the game. Because we take feedback seriously we think that prioritizing access to the game early on is important". Paying for early access is pretty much akin to being a kickstarter donator, consider it Steam's own version if you will. The word "entitled" is not a bad thing in and of itself, perhaps this is where confusion is reigning? Backers/Early Access payees are entitled to the things they paid for, access to the alpha is one of those perks amongst others. There is nothing wrong with this. People going apeshit over the price of something they don't understand or have any right to be angry over whatsoever are demonstrating their egotistical sense of self-entitlement, which is a bad thing. They think they are entitled to whatever they want, when they want with no regard to anything else. Does that help clear things up a little? I hope so as I'm a little pushed for time now and it's an interesting discussion.
As for the demo and beta thing, I probably agree with you there but it's not really important or essential to the topic at hand.
Oh well screw you OP, I thought you were talking about a device that could destroy the planet for $90. How the hell is a madmen on a budget supposed to blackmail the world if all these fancy weapons costs millions of dollars!?
OT:This sounds reasonable, it's like a patient humble bundle.
OT:This sounds reasonable, it's like a patient humble bundle.
It's a bad move because of the nonsense it has stired up... I don't at all agree with the people complaining here, but I think it should have been possible to see it coming. A lot of people that had never even heard of Planetary Annihiliation would see it on Steam for $90, and people being how they are it doesn't surprise me that they reacted the way they did... What does surprise me is that they put the game up on Steam so early in the first place, because the way they did their alpha, beta and release backing tiers do not corespond with anything else you find with early access on Steam. This formula seems to belong on Kickstarter and people are perfectly happy with it, but as soon as it shows up on Steam early-access people expect the kind of deal that minecraft did and many other games are adopting.GoaThief said:
I'm just hoping the game doesn't gain too much bad publicity for this, cause I already backed at $90 half a year ago or so, and I'm really excited about this game! Played the alpha a little bit and everything is looking oh so promising =3.
I checked myself on steam and it seems it was more transparent than i was lead to believe so i concede that point.GoaThief said:
It's not the same at all. As I have mentioned before, a pledger is a donor, a person buying this pack is just a buyer, a costumer. And both are very different and as such the treatment they receive cannot be compared. Our faculty built a new a building thanks to donors and sponsors, the sponsors got marketing in return while the donors just got their name on bronze plaques, they both invested money though. But it's normal they got different things because they paid for different reasons. Just like a pledger pays for different reasons than a pre-orderer.
And no one ever said that was wrong. However since they are used as an excuse for the pricing this suggests an attitude of "I paid 90$ for it so you have to as well!", that however is a shitty attitude. Mainly since both contexts are not comparable.
Something they don't understand? What's not to understand? They ask 50$ for testing their game in alpha and beta phase. That's very easy to comprehend.
And we don't feel entitled to whatever we want. We do however feel like it is our right to tell Uber their pricing is absurd and that they won't have our ???. Telling sellers we don't like their prices is the only thing we costumers have. Are we supposed to be mindless sheep who bend over and spread our ass cheeks?
It is essential. Because the pricing only makes sense if alpha/beta testing a game is somehow something people should pay for. If you agree with me than you should be appalled by Uber's pricing like me.
I saw this pop up on my daily list of Steam ads and thought "Huh? That might be the most expensive game I've ever seen them list." Had no idea what it was; honestly, still don't. Still, I did note the little "get involved with its development" thing. Seemed a bit unusual to me, but it makes sense. It's just like those special edition releases that cost like 50-100% more than just the game and add a whole bunch of trinkets, only instead of trinkets, you get to influence the development and direction of the game. Neat. Not worth it to me, but still, neat.
As for transparency, I'm not sure what people are talking about here. Right in the little one window ad, it blatantly tells you that you're paying to get involved with the development of the game as much as the game itself. You can argue whether that's worth $90 or not, which would come down to whether or not you see enough potential in this game, but still, it's as transparent as can be.
As for transparency, I'm not sure what people are talking about here. Right in the little one window ad, it blatantly tells you that you're paying to get involved with the development of the game as much as the game itself. You can argue whether that's worth $90 or not, which would come down to whether or not you see enough potential in this game, but still, it's as transparent as can be.
Oh yeah, Total Annihilation was an odd game in the genre for a lot of different reasons and that was one of them. It was a game built on filling roles rather than a rock paper scissors relationship with other units. Heck, there were multiple equally viable means to engage in an offense and even older Tech 1 units still kept up some usefulness in the late game. That is actually why I loved it so much: it gave a proverbial sandbox take on strategy that hasn't been accurately reproduced since, even in the Supreme Commander series.Callate said:
Aw great, now I want to go to Good old games and get the complete pack just to see how many units my computer can handle before going nuclear.
Yet I can find the game for $40. Though you will have to wait 6 months. $60 for beta access & 90 or more for alpha access.
They are utilizing the steam as their distributor.
From what Neutrino has said, PA will be patched into it's final form.
What they are doing was already discussed with their backers, 75% support what is going on right now.
They are utilizing the steam as their distributor.
From what Neutrino has said, PA will be patched into it's final form.
What they are doing was already discussed with their backers, 75% support what is going on right now.
Frankly I think the people who are complaining vocally about the OPTION to pay $90 for alpha access are complete and utter morons.
They don't have to buy the access. The access was a reward for Kickstarter backers and I commend these guys for not screwing over the backers by offering alpha access cheaper to avoid the backlash, since they already have the Kickstarter money and could have easily done that.
This game has a normal release date like any other game. I don't understand how it hurts anyone to wait for the normal release and pay the normal price, which I believe is $20.
Of course simps always be sipping that hatorade.
They don't have to buy the access. The access was a reward for Kickstarter backers and I commend these guys for not screwing over the backers by offering alpha access cheaper to avoid the backlash, since they already have the Kickstarter money and could have easily done that.
This game has a normal release date like any other game. I don't understand how it hurts anyone to wait for the normal release and pay the normal price, which I believe is $20.
Of course simps always be sipping that hatorade.
No one is being forced to buy it, so why should anyone be appalled? Because you think the price for early access is too high? Then don't buy in. I'm not going to buy in, I have no interest in early access. The regular game, when released, will be $20. Is that a rip off?generals3 said:
Gamers can really suck as customers sometimes, here we are given a really interesting choice, the choice to get involved really early in development and help shape the direction the game goes in, and yet people complain and try get that choice removed.
Terrible.
They seem to have got confused about the difference between Kickstarter and Steam.
Just because people are prepared to pay £70 to back a project, does not mean people want to pay £70 on Steam for an unfinished game. I think they've made a mistake here - I understand why they might have thought it was OK, but it's a PR error nonetheless.
Just because people are prepared to pay £70 to back a project, does not mean people want to pay £70 on Steam for an unfinished game. I think they've made a mistake here - I understand why they might have thought it was OK, but it's a PR error nonetheless.
Glad to see there's a lot more sensibility on here (mostly). I was just looking at the Steam forums a little while ago and can't believe the stupidty and sense of entitlement that the majority posting seem to have, they're an embarrassment to the Master Race!
What I'm reading from it is even though the developers have a clear plan and reason for what they're doing, and even though it's pretty obvious if you don't like it or think it's too expensive you can no buy it or wait, it seems like it's just a whole bunch of people coming out of the wood works saying "take this game down because the price hurts my feeling!"
What I'm reading from it is even though the developers have a clear plan and reason for what they're doing, and even though it's pretty obvious if you don't like it or think it's too expensive you can no buy it or wait, it seems like it's just a whole bunch of people coming out of the wood works saying "take this game down because the price hurts my feeling!"
It will be $40 at release actually.
Also, the above images are what the steam page looks like after you start clicking "read more" links... So I like how your "look at how transparent they are" "proof" isn't even transparent. (at least, that is not how the store page for the game looks in the actual steam client, i dunno, maybe the website is different).
It vary much buries the lede. It does not make clear that you are paying more than double the retail cost of the game for what is essentially a special edition that comes with alpha access. Lots of games come with pre-orders and even special edition pre-orders that come with extra perks, sometimes those perks are access to beta (or alpha occasionally), but they are not marketed as "here is a game for $90, but oh yea, if you do some digging, you can get it for $40 six months from now", they are marketed transparently as "here you can pre-order this game for $40, or if you can't wait the six months, get the super special edition for $90 and get into alpha today!" Notice the purchase box doesn't even say "purchase galactic edition" which is what they are selling and would at least hint that its a special edition that is above retail cost for the game... In fact, no where on the steam page AT ALL does it list the retail price, it has the current price, the beta price if you click to read more of their news feed, and then a month for retail release with no price. Yup, super transparent.
Also, not being forced to buy something doesn't eliminate the right to not like or agree with the price of the item. No one is forced to buy virtually anything... Does that mean no one can ever complain about the price of anything? I may not be forced to buy this game, but I am forced to buy games in general (in as much as I am forced to buy anything else, as it is a major hobby of mine) and a developer starting a trend of charging $90 for a game (and not clearly for a special edition) is a scary thought. I mean, console games went up by $10 in price with the launch of ps3 and 360 because the console makers needed to offset the cost of the consoles themselves, and that entire ordeal led to nearly all the big developers selling all games at $60 to start even on PC, where they didn't have extra costs to offset. This is a young industry that changes fast, and poorly advertised new business models like this one can lead to devastating changes rather abruptly.
Not to mention the bad PR this game is currently getting for showing up on the front page of steam like this:
Also, the above images are what the steam page looks like after you start clicking "read more" links... So I like how your "look at how transparent they are" "proof" isn't even transparent. (at least, that is not how the store page for the game looks in the actual steam client, i dunno, maybe the website is different).
It vary much buries the lede. It does not make clear that you are paying more than double the retail cost of the game for what is essentially a special edition that comes with alpha access. Lots of games come with pre-orders and even special edition pre-orders that come with extra perks, sometimes those perks are access to beta (or alpha occasionally), but they are not marketed as "here is a game for $90, but oh yea, if you do some digging, you can get it for $40 six months from now", they are marketed transparently as "here you can pre-order this game for $40, or if you can't wait the six months, get the super special edition for $90 and get into alpha today!" Notice the purchase box doesn't even say "purchase galactic edition" which is what they are selling and would at least hint that its a special edition that is above retail cost for the game... In fact, no where on the steam page AT ALL does it list the retail price, it has the current price, the beta price if you click to read more of their news feed, and then a month for retail release with no price. Yup, super transparent.
Also, not being forced to buy something doesn't eliminate the right to not like or agree with the price of the item. No one is forced to buy virtually anything... Does that mean no one can ever complain about the price of anything? I may not be forced to buy this game, but I am forced to buy games in general (in as much as I am forced to buy anything else, as it is a major hobby of mine) and a developer starting a trend of charging $90 for a game (and not clearly for a special edition) is a scary thought. I mean, console games went up by $10 in price with the launch of ps3 and 360 because the console makers needed to offset the cost of the consoles themselves, and that entire ordeal led to nearly all the big developers selling all games at $60 to start even on PC, where they didn't have extra costs to offset. This is a young industry that changes fast, and poorly advertised new business models like this one can lead to devastating changes rather abruptly.
Not to mention the bad PR this game is currently getting for showing up on the front page of steam like this:
A $90 price tag when new bigger budget games typically go for $50 on Steam is an outlier, it's not going to set a trend. Minecraft would have never gotten anywhere if Notch sold beta access for $100, and other developers know this. The only time you'd want to use a high price tag on early access is if you want to keep the beta group small. Or if you're trying to self publish a proven franchise like the Annihilation series (anyone else out there that actually like TA: Kingdoms?) you're not going to want to sell Beta access to the game at a reduced price because most of your established customer base will snatch it up.Crozekiel said:
No on complains when publishers put out pricy collector editions, and personally I don't see this as much different. Regardless though I wouldn't mind seeing some experimentation with 'premium' priced games. A good developer will know what their market is and how much they expect to sell sets how much they can spend on development. Bringing this to an example the audience for the Total War and Civilization series probably pretty much the same. So would this audience pay $100 for Civilization:Total War? I know I would.