Never really seen the appeal of beta access - I prefer my games to have been finished and working (well, mostly) before playing
Activision is dangling a rather juicy carrot in front to gamers eager to get their mitts on Bungie Studios’ massively multiplayer online shooter Destiny: direct access to the beta test programme. Ths stick: you need to cough up full whack for the game by ordering it ahead of time. Bungie's Destiny Bungie’s Destiny: Pfhor what …
Then your missing out on such great games as Star Citizen or Prison Architect.
You're missing out on Kerbal Space Program, which actually runs quite well on Linux and is rather a hoot. Granted, it only recently reached a state of being useful and the next update promises to have lots of goodies.
For $23 it was a hell of a lot better than anything else.
>> "Never really seen the appeal of beta access - I prefer my games to have been finished and working (well, mostly) before playing"
All the more reason to be glad that those most passionate about the game are the ones who will be helping to ensure it's as polished as possible! Sounds like a win-win to me!
I just hope it's possible to play Destiny offline, though I have almost zero hope of that.
Interesting to see what it's like when done
Not being a big fan of Halo I hope that they've enjoyed the independence and that we get something a bit special.
Hands up who wants to see Oni 2?
Selling Beta access like this is NOT a good idea, yet another Marpets brain fit.
A beta is for TESTING if you do this you aren't testing you are just selling early access. Having worked in the industry I know that this can ruin a game before it is ready.
Article: "direct access to the beta test programme.
"Ths[sic] stick: you need to cough up full whack for the game by ordering it ahead of time."
Alastair: "A beta is for TESTING if you do this you aren't testing you are just selling early access."
Yes, of course they are selling early access, but it's hardly a first. I have to admit (with a sort of red-faced mumble-cough(*)) that I bought a pre-purchase edition of GW2 so (1) I could get a beta-testing early look, and (2) I could start early because of three days' Early Access to the released version. So I have one of the very first full-version characters created in the semi-wee hours(**) of the 25th of August last year. The beta testing was done over a series of weekends and odd days here and there, with bugfixes applied on the fly and between sessions. Of course you're testing it for them, and paying for the privilege, but equally you are getting an early look at something you theoretically (see (*)) want.
(*) red-faced mumble-cough because it failed to live up to my expectations/hopes. It was almost right, but in a way that leaves it far from what it should have been. I wanted to like it, but in the end I couldn't really carry on after I rather grimly battered my way to getting my first character up to max level. But their failure *wasn't* because they sold early access to public beta testing.
(**) They opened Early Access three days ahead of the full access release, nominally at 9am CEST, but in fact the servers were available three hours earlier than that. I got up in time to be ready to go at 6am, and was stomping centaurs in Shaemoor only a couple of minutes later. Much good did it do me in the end.
>Selling Beta access like this is NOT a good idea, yet another Marpets brain fit.
>A beta is for TESTING if you do this you aren't testing you are just selling early access. Having worked in the industry I know that this can ruin a game before it is ready.
Betas are for testing, but part of that testing will require thousands of people, though probably not as many as will want to join in. So, how to select which members of the public to invite to the Beta? Simple, you give access to those who show the most enthusiasm, faith, and yes, financial commitment to your upcoming product. It seems as fair a way as any other I can think of.
The last few Halo games have had elements of their on-line game-play tweaked and tuned (or buggered about with, depending on your view) weeks and months after their release.
I suppose there are different ways to look at this.
Perhaps I'm not qualified to comment because I never play online games but the way I see it, all games have pre-orders and most online games have beta testing periods. I.e. - there would be people pre-ordering and people beta testing anyway.
It seems to me that those who pre-order the game are the ones with the most enthusiasm for it and who have a vested interest in how well it turns out from day one - as opposed to those who might wait until it is out and the reviews published and possible early bugs ironed out. Surely it makes sense to take advantage of that great resource and get the players most invested in the success of the title to be the ones who stress-test it?
That's my take anyway and if I was in their position then it's what I'd do too.
Hm. Good luck to them... I just wish we had more decent single player games.
9 digit code?
I've just Pre-ordered my copy from Sainsburys, and I never got a code.. ( rolls eyes )
Re: 9 digit code?
The codes aren't around yet, pre-ordering from certain retailers will mean you may get sent a code at some point in the future.
Sadly for you, Sainsbury's is not one of those 'certain retailers' - the list is here :- http://www.destinythegame.com/wheretobuy
Re: 9 digit code?
Yeah it is.. just select UK, then 360, its in the list.. :p
This looks promising
Also a huge mistake by MS.
Bungie are a top level developer and if a publisher had any sense would buy them.
At last PS owners can play one of their games on their own console.
Methinks thou dost credit Bungie too much?
"In a novel move for an FPS, Destiny is a game that puts an emphasis on co-operation"
Hmm, I'd put a few other games ahead in that category, going all the way back to Team Fortress, Tribes, Borderlands etc
More recently this sounds a lot like Planetside 2.
Re: Methinks thou dost credit Bungie too much?
>Hmm, I'd put a few other games ahead in that category,
As described like that, then yes. However, 'Destiny's blend of a massively multi-player FPS in a persistent shared world with no game lobbies set against a ten year story arc is not one I have seen before... if I had, I would be playing it now!
Unlike the people who have pre-ordered, I'll have the option of reading reviews and listening to friends after its release to see if it is as good as it sounds. Meanwhile, I might just have to re-watch 'Cowboy Bebop' to get a fix of hijinks set across the solar system!
Wrong platform for a MMOG
So it's a MMOG on a console...so that's going to need (Xbox wise) Live Gold on it, and to fund a MMOG unless it's going to be micro transaction central is going to need an additional subscription. Two subs out of console users is asking to fail. That's PC territory where this game should be anyhow and it's just daft Bungie aren't supporting the market which is the real home of all decent FPS and MMOG's!
Re: Wrong platform for a MMOG
Bungie haven't yet ruled out a PC release. If you want to play the game so badly (and give up hundreds of hours in which money could be earnt) then why not just buy a console... a current generation model if necessary, since I'd imagine they will drop in price when their successors are released. Or, put your money into supporting David Braben's remake of 'Elite', or one of the other "decent FPS and MMOGs" of which you speak.
Besides, this game will be going on for ten years, so who knows what a 'PC' or a 'Console' will mean over that time.
Regarding the revenue stream for running a MMOG, clues can be found in the Bungie-Activision contract:
>Destiny will consist of a series of four MMO-style "sci-fantasy action shooter" titles, released every other year beginning in Fall 2013
>Expansion pack-style downloadable content (DLC), codenamed "Comet," will be released every other year beginning in 2014
>Destiny will feature a number of DLCs, microtransactions, and value-added paid services