You don’t understand software development or the F2P model, you’re the type of businessmen that doesn’t understand how to sell an amazing product. You’re the kind of person that overprices digital “goods” and complain when they’re not selling. You’re the one hung up on technicalities and you doesn’t understand how a company SHOULD work in today’s market. You’re a lawyeristic jerk that is lost in coding practices of two decades ago. You might as well be running this game because your attitudes are the exact problems that this game has. Instead of trying to make it fun, be fair, and make money by offering a superior product the company takes their full rights to do whatever they want. Yes, they have them but if they want to make a superior product they really should only pull out those rights as a last resort.
Minecraft was up to version 1.7.x or higher when it officially “released”
You’re still behind a couple decades on coding practice, especially with F2P models entering the scene. You can’t find Digital copies of 90% of the F2P games out there.
For the record, I haven’t spent any money on this game, nor am I likely to. A “official” release version doesn’t mean anymore more than a “beta” release version does, and they’ll screw me over without regret.
I’m not happy because they’re making choices that are screwing over a game I love. Not just are they screwing over the game, they’re hurting themselves and they are so blind to the fact.
Tell you what, why don’t you show us all your CV and prove how you know so much more than everyone else here about how the game market works?
For the record, the “1.0” comment doesn’t just apply to old games - it’s just easier to see. You can see it modern games, you just have to do it indirectly. For example, I recently bought a PS3 game and within about three days of launch it had a patch to “v1.0.1” or somesuch that fixed minor bugs and technical issues post-launch. This implies, rather strongly, that the launch version was v1.0.0.
Just in case you or any other reader does not know, the version numbers have a set of rules they follow. They are laid out as follows: version a.b.c, etc. “a” means a major change in the status of the game. For example, Starcraft 2 went from version 1 to version 2 when the Heart of the Swarm expansion was released. I believe World of Warcraft likewise is up to version 5 now, but can’t be sure as I don’t play it. “b” is when a large change happens, but not so significant as to be a totally new game. I am aware some people might say the jump from 0.7.13 to 0.8.0 counts as this, but because we are still in Beta that doesn’t really count. “c” and onward represent increasingly minor changes, which is why large and complicated games tend to have version numbers that look like someone’s phone number. Any game that has “version 0.anything” is a Beta. 0.1 would likely be the initial Alpha build.
Minecraft is perhaps not a good example of the “beta” rule, because I’m pretty sure Notch is on record saying that game would never have been released if he’d been allowed to keep working on it until he was happy. It is not really a game born of conventional business practices, but I would say it encouraged other businesses to try and cash in on, and abuse, its success. Besides, it’s one of the only true Sandbox games in existence - you can never declare it finished because there’s always potentially more toys you can put in for the players to use or ignore as they choose.
Now, back to F2P models for a moment. As a matter of fact, I do understand them. I understand how the good ones work (make an amazing game, add cosmetic stuff / convenience that can be acquired with real money, watch with glee as your profits roll in) and how the xxxx ones work (make a crappy game where everything is an unbearable grind, nickel and dime every facet of the game - cosmetics, power, experience, even the ability to play at all - and hope the initial 30 minutes of ‘free’ play time you gave them made them want to keep going enough that they’ll pay to escape the grind). I understand the approaches, even if I cannot fathom who the hell believes some of those ideas were good. I understand a lot about games, and what games are good, and why they are good, and why some games don’t age well when others are just as playable now as they were twenty years ago. I understand why a lot of modern titles are being ruined by developers who don’t understand games, and don’t know why they are good, and don’t understand that you will never make a game that appeals to everyone.
The reason I state that you should not be supporting a Beta is that a Beta has not ‘gone gold’. It has not reached the point where the creators have said “okay, this is the game we want to sell to the public; this is how it works, this is how we make money, this is how we’re running it. Go!” Until that happens, anything and everything is still potentially going to change. This is important, because it means that you cannot, as a consumer, accurately use your most powerful tool - your money - to voice your opinion.
Let me expand on that: Once this game hits 1.0, by rights the developers should not make any major changes, or if they do it should not have a major impact on play. They might add higher tiers, more scenarios, more ships, etc. but the core game should, in theory, remain the same. This is the key difference between release and beta. If, upon release, you like the game then I advise you buy some in-game gold as a way of supporting the game. If you do not, either play for free or leave.
If you spend money now, on a beta, there is no guarantee the game will not change dramatically, and so the game you invested in may not exist any more a few months down the line. This is unfair to you, the customer, and I see no reason to side with the company over the customer. If you still want to invest in a beta, then feel free; just don’t come onto the forums crying about how you feel ripped off when version 0.9.0 rolls around and the game takes another major shift in playstyle and balance.