|
|
Post by hardly on Mar 29, 2016 18:33:32 GMT
I've wondered many times whether leaving out of date information up that might mislead people about the nature of the development constitutes false advertising for an early access game. I doubt it. For it to be false advertising, it would have to say "this feature is in the game." Early Access provides a super-easy loophole for this. Developers of Early Access games can say "this WILL be in the game" and sell it on that basis, but they don't actually have to deliver on those commitments. Early Access allows for developers to: - Make any promises they want about what might be in the game, and not deliver;
- Ignore player feedback (even though, per Steam's own guidance, community involvement is key to the concept);
- Change the game in a substantial way (even though Steam's typical get-out for dissatisfied Early Access customers is that they shouldn't purchase a title that they don't want to play in it's current state - this argument does not hold water when you remember that the developer can significantly change the game's 'current state' whenever they want);
- Abandon the game when they get bored of it, and not have to give refunds.
Painted in this light, the Early Access concept suddenly doesn't look so appealing to consumers. In fact it is ripe for exploitation, and 22Cans have taken full advantage of this. They aren't the only ones, but they make a very good example. As a consumer, when I naively bought Godus in 2013, I was aware that there was a degree of risk associated with Early Access. But if I had fully appreciated quite how much freedom the developers have to screw their customers over, I would never have purchased Early Access and I don't think anyone else would either. I disagree. Early Access is a fig leaf that relies on transparency by the person releasing the game about the state of the product and their plans for the future. I agree that Early Access gives them an out if circumstances change but I don't think it gives them any excuse for misleading customers where the information they are providing is untrue as of today (as opposed to plans changing in the future). Given the need for consumers to be doing their own due diligence for early access I think early access requires developers to be more accurate with the information they provide and not less. Having said all that there has obviously been little or very little testing of how consumer law in different jurisdictions applies to early access/Kickstarter. There is a big difference between what Steam says early access allows and the view courts take of consumer law. One thing we've learned about Valve is they don't think very hard about what the consumer laws are in the different jurisdictions they operate in. So we won't know the answers to these questions definitively until that happens. However, I'm confident that any serious scrutiny in court would take a dim view of companies distribting patently false information while selling games based on their future development intentions. I also didn't fully comprehend what early access meant before the GODUS experience. Since then I've bought very few games on early access/preorder. |
|
|
|
Post by earlparvisjam on Mar 30, 2016 3:06:28 GMT
Perhaps the 22Cans test team no longer exists. I addressed this in another thread, but feel it really needs to be repeated: Testers don't fix defects, they identify, document, and report defects to management and developers. They could have a thousand man testing team and still result in the same garbage program. While unit testing is on the developers' hands, anything beyond that is the job of Testers. Testing and development are best handled separately. Developers in charge of their own testing result in 95%+ test passes, low defects, and really crappy code. |
|
|
|
Post by Crumpy Six on Mar 30, 2016 7:24:52 GMT
Perhaps the 22Cans test team no longer exists. I addressed this in another thread, but feel it really needs to be repeated: Testers don't fix defects, they identify, document, and report defects to management and developers. They could have a thousand man testing team and still result in the same garbage program. While unit testing is on the developers' hands, anything beyond that is the job of Testers. Testing and development are best handled separately. Developers in charge of their own testing result in 95%+ test passes, low defects, and really crappy code. While I agree with this, I'm still confused by whatever is going on with 22Cans QA/Tech Support (for they seem to be one and the same right now). CyberGrim (Martin?) posted frequently on the Godus Wars Tech Support board from the initial release to Feb 16th. He hasn't posted since. I expect he either no longer works for 22Cans, or he's been told to stop participating. Not his fault. But this hasn't been explained anywhere so it's just speculation. This particular bug is not only incredibly easy to identify during the most rudimentary troubleshooting. It's also immediately fixable. |
|
|
|
Post by hardly on Mar 30, 2016 7:31:20 GMT
I addressed this in another thread, but feel it really needs to be repeated: Testers don't fix defects, they identify, document, and report defects to management and developers. They could have a thousand man testing team and still result in the same garbage program. While unit testing is on the developers' hands, anything beyond that is the job of Testers. Testing and development are best handled separately. Developers in charge of their own testing result in 95%+ test passes, low defects, and really crappy code. While I agree with this, I'm still confused by whatever is going on with 22Cans QA/Tech Support (for they seem to be one and the same right now). CyberGrim (Martin?) posted frequently on the Godus Wars Tech Support board from the initial release to Feb 16th. He hasn't posted since. I expect he either no longer works for 22Cans, or he's been told to stop participating. Not his fault. But this hasn't been explained anywhere so it's just speculation. This particular bug is not only incredibly easy to identify during the most rudimentary troubleshooting. It's also immediately fixable. I attribute all of this to them pretending to be developing a game rather than actually developing it. Of course even given this explanation you could counter that they could do a better job of pretending by fixing the bug. |
|
|
|
Post by Crumpy Six on Apr 7, 2016 11:38:33 GMT
I honestly don't understand Muir and Aynen's motives,... (snip) In it's most basic form, it boils down to this for me: If you believe that a solution to a problem doesn't exist, you're not likely to really look for it. Believing in a posibility is a prerequisit for pursuing it. So, when I choose to believe that Godus can work, I don't do it because I consider it likely that it will work. I do it because I want to maximize the chances of it working. In other words, I'm not an optimist because I consider optimistic views to carry more truth. I am an optimist in order to increase my chances of finding a way to make things work. The strength of my convictions, or anyone else's, don't affect their accuracy; being convinced of something doesn't make it true. So I use my convictions entirely based on their function, not their truthfulness. Beyond that, I find that giving up on things is like a muscle: do it more often and the muscle gets stronger. Do it less and it grows weaker. It's that old Native American saying of 2 wolves fighting, a good one and a bad one. The one you feed wins. What those wolves are a metaphor for is entirely interchangable. Of course, I'm not inhuman and there have been moments of dispair for me too. Like when Peter announced the trail, entirely counter productive to what I was trying to do at the time, I got dishearted. But in spite of the odds, being dishearted wasn't a wolf I wanted to feed. So I stopped feeding it. If, worst case scenario, Godus fails completely, I'll hopefully still keep an attitude I can use constructively. Comparatively, Godus' success is just a cherry on top. Besides, being a part of making something possible that everyone thought was impossible seems like a possibility too appealing not to pursue. People saying 'it can't be done' actually makes me want to try harder. And that attitude is something I felt Molyneux has too. So it's also perhaps a bit self-serving to want to see him try. It gives me the conviction to keep trying too. I'm not happy with the suggestion that Molyneux may have become too focussed on profits for Fabs' tastes, but I don't think profit and a drive to do the impossible are mutually exclusive. And rather than disapproving of a profit-oriented approach, I'd prefer to look for a 'have your cake and eat it too' solution. So I choose to assume that such a solution exists. Good time to salvage this old nugget? I realise Aynen no longer posts here. And frankly, I bet 22Cans could wind up completely and he would remain inexplicably loyal to whatever his final order was. Does Aynen still believe in possibility where Godus is concerned, I wonder. Is his positive outlook actually "constructive" as he suggests here? Right now his adherence to the law of the Cans seems to be a negative, if anything. He could certainly, for example, get his hands dirty in the Technical Support board (which is presently 100% reliant on customers providing peer support) but he doesn't. Presumably because he either doesn't like Godus Wars and doesn't play it, or is blindly complying with instructions not to talk. |
|
|
|
Post by 13thGeneral on Apr 7, 2016 16:54:08 GMT
In my opinion, there's no reason to lament about, and drag through the mire, the volunteer Steam mods, in this forum, for no apparent reason than to goad them out of hiding or escalate issues. Their reasons are their own, and they're not responsible for, nor have authorities over, anything going on within & by 22Cans; I don't get the feeling they're really taken seriously by 22Cans, and likely have little to no weight in providing feedback (tho I could be wrong). I get the "guilty by association" assertion - and am aware of the moderation they've been involved with - but there's really no need, nor good, to pull them down HERE just because they're convenient and available (albeit absentee) targets; regardless of their actions - be it questionable or lacking - as mods. If you have issue with their actions, your best recourse is to file a complaint with Steam (even tho it does appear staggeringly poor and somewhat ineffective), and leave the ridicule out.
This is simply how if feel; My time and energy is far more valuable when aimed at appropriate entities, like calling out the leadership at 22Cans, petitioning reform of digital purchase protection laws, requesting improved policy changes within Crowd funding & Steam Early Access, and informing/warning the community about this travesty of a "game development". Also, I prefer to be playing and talking about other more worthy games.
I am not saying people can't, or shouldn't, vent about particular events where they felt wronged by the Steam mods, or question their intents & actions, but I find no need or use in attacking their character - especially whereas its unprovoked, and unrelated, and is a bit unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crumpy Six on Apr 7, 2016 19:48:28 GMT
You're right. I've been unkind. Sorry Aynen and Muir. It's unfair to try to bully you into speaking out when you've chosen not to, and I'm sure you have your reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by 13thGeneral on Apr 7, 2016 23:34:33 GMT
You're right. I've been unkind. Sorry Aynen and Muir. It's unfair to try to bully you into speaking out when you've chosen not to, and I'm sure you have your reasons. Not a problem. I tried not to sound like I was scolding you specifically, but just stating my point of view base on what you had said. We're a community of gamers, brought together by an unfortunate set of circumstances, and sometimes it's difficult to resist being pulled, or pulling, things back down into the drudgery; especially when it's been so quiet on the Godus front. |
|
|
|
Post by hardly on Apr 8, 2016 2:27:57 GMT
Aynen and Muir are free not to of course but one the reasons I do hope the give 22cans the finger and post here whenever they want is that when they've contributed to discussions here they've added to the community.
I do think they should withdraw from being mods on steam but that is not meant as a criticism of them but rather a way of forcing 22cans to address their lack of a offical presence on the steam forums.
|
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Apr 8, 2016 6:44:17 GMT
You're right. I've been unkind. Sorry Aynen and Muir. It's unfair to try to bully you into speaking out when you've chosen not to, and I'm sure you have your reasons. Not a problem. I tried not to sound like I was scolding you specifically, but just stating my point of view base on what you had said. We're a community of gamers, brought together by an unfortunate set of circumstances, and sometimes it's difficult to resist being pulled, or pulling, things back down into the drudgery; especially when it's been so quiet on the Godus front. Wait. I thought Crumpy was sarcastic. Was it my wishful thinking? |
|
|
|
Post by Crumpy Six on Apr 8, 2016 8:03:36 GMT
I wasn't being sarcastic. My first reaction when I saw 13thGeneral's post was annoyance, because I don't think volunteer Steam mods should be above reproach and in fact I have sometimes felt that being volunteers makes it worse. The staff of 22Cans have bills to pay and CVs to complete. The volunteer mods, on the other hand, freely choose to be a part of the wretched performance for no gain whatsoever.
Except it's not for no gain. Maybe they really like being mods. Maybe they have personal friends in 22Cans who they are trying to support. Or whatever other motive, which isn't for me to judge. 13thGeneral is right that they have no authority over the inner-workings of the studio so none of the decisions made by 22Cans are their responsibility. Lately their mod actions on Steam haven't been over-zealous so there's not really any complaint to be had there.
Personally, I do feel that Aynen and Muir are being exploited by 22Cans. 22Cans are not prepared to subject their own employees to the community, and in fact are enjoying a certain level of anonymity right now as we don't even know which individuals (other than PM himself) are still employed there. My advice to the volunteer mods (and this is advice I would give to any friend in that situation) would be to quit and focus on their other projects. Their loyalty is completely undeserved.
|
|
