Jump to content
Kngz

Beta Release

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, mazh said:

that's a lie told by many developers that many people believe today.

Have you an exemple of an older game with the same level of support of "today's game" (matchmaking using dedicated server, monthly patch, free DLC, competition support...) who don't have micro transaction (or paid DLC) and had a low entry price ? Just curious.

And even if it's possible to survive without microtransaction, microtransaction allows games to survive with a smaller player base, which is a possibility that we can't excluded for Battalion.

Edited by Connard
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DarkMortyr said:

It also allows developers to give you a free content that might otherwise be a paid DLC.

I'd rather pay for DLC than have people running around with pink thompsons and sky blue kar98k's tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SupreMe said:

I'd rather pay for DLC than have people running around with pink thompsons and sky blue kar98k's tbh.

Dlc are way worse than microtransaction, they just split the community and generate less revenue. 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

micro-transactions, if done correctly, is the way to go for Battalion. like Zane says, DLC will only split the community and generate less revenue over the life of a game. micro-transactions are so much easier to throw small amounts of money at. i keep saying this but the way it's done in Overwatch is the best example i've seen for micro-transactions and their approach would fit perfectly into Battalion.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Masser said:

For large single player games or games costing $60 it might be. If they're are single player then they don't have as many long term costs, and games such as Battlefield, CoD or Battlefront likely can make a profit from their own sales of the game itself. In the case of Battalion they're aiming it to be a cheap release costing somewhere in the price range of $15 give or take either way. They will be renting their own servers, releasing content post release and in theory having a large competitive scene with in the future things like LAN's, cups ect with support from leagues such as the ESL. So in comparison to most other games, not only is it going to be quite affordable but needed to support later development. As a smaller game developer they won't be able to rely on having 2000 game sales a month, it could happen but if it doesn't they need a backup source of income.

As someone who watches some of Jim Sterling's videos and TotalBiscuit who are as far as I'm aware two main large YouTubers who have criticised games such as Dead space 3 for its micro-transactions, I would see this differently. These don't affect things in game nor will I imagine they will be expensive. 

are they releasing the game at 15$? where did you got that information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mazh said:

are they releasing the game at 15$? where did you got that information?

For a long time they have mentioned about wanting a low price, all the way back in last year when the Humblebundle was still accessible, they mentioned they may decrease the price and include microtransactions or skins to counterbalance the price drop.

They haven't given a particular price, as I said in my first post "$15 give or take". Could be $20, or could be $10. We have no idea. Consequently, the idea of microtransactions or skins is easier to swallow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would be disapointing. As a humble backer i paid 65 euro's and it stated cleary in a later stage the game would be around 40 euro's. From that i thought investing 25 extra towards the game and being part of alpha, beta early acces was reasonable. Would be rly bad if people can buy in soon for 10 or 20 euro's. I wouldn't like this at all, as i expected more gametime. Not sure if they even stated it would be only weekends (nights), because of that and some problems i only played like 25 minutes so far. :|

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sNrklhaai said:

would be disapointing. As a humble backer i paid 65 euro's and it stated cleary in a later stage the game would be around 40 euro's. From that i thought investing 25 extra towards the game and being part of alpha, beta early acces was reasonable. Would be rly bad if people can buy in soon for 10 or 20 euro's. I wouldn't like this at all, as i expected more gametime. Not sure if they even stated it would be only weekends (nights), because of that and some problems i only played like 25 minutes so far. :|

Personally i've given them 60€ on HB but would have even given more if it were possible just because I liked what they were doing and how they were doing it, so I decided to support them. All I want is for the game to succed as it is the only way to get my "investment" back and if that means selling the game for 15€ then it's fine to me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sNrklhaai said:

I wouldn't like this at all, as i expected more gametime. Not sure if they even stated it would be only weekends (nights), because of that and some problems i only played like 25 minutes so far. :|

it was stated very early on that it would be alpha weekends.

i backed the kickstarter and paid more than €60. i'm sure they'll compensate us in some way if the final price is below €20 with some in-game rewards or they'll have a lot of very angry people. personally, i won't be angry as long as the game turns out well and delivers all of the promised milestones. if you get the game you were promised the reduced price should not matter any more than if the price was reduced 6 months after release. alternatively, if the game sold 600,000 copies at €15 when it would have sold only 100,000 copies at €40 that's more people playing the game. there's no downside to any of that for the players or Bulkhead.

Edited by Farq-S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Masser said:

For a long time they have mentioned about wanting a low price, all the way back in last year when the Humblebundle was still accessible, they mentioned they may decrease the price and include microtransactions or skins to counterbalance the price drop.

They haven't given a particular price, as I said in my first post "$15 give or take". Could be $20, or could be $10. We have no idea. Consequently, the idea of microtransactions or skins is easier to swallow.

agreed, if the price is in that range, I can't complain about microtransactions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2017 at 4:21 AM, SupreMe said:

I'd rather pay for DLC than have people running around with pink thompsons and sky blue kar98k's tbh.

whats wrong with pink thompson's and sky blue kar98s? I mean do people actually care what color their opponents weapon is if it brings no stat advantages? Like that just sounds so stuck up, if a person wants a red weapon for what ever reason and there is a skin they can buy then its their choice, if you want yours to be authentic then you dont purchase 1, not required to do it yet the game still makes money from the people who do.

 

Micro transactions are a way of life for video games these days if you haven't been living under a rock then it should be pretty obvious. The best ones offer skins and different customization options while the scumbag companies do things like give out weapons with stats and other things.

Personally i cant wait to have my "sky blue kar98" because when i blow your head of you will know its me :), on a serous note,  its easy money for the company, easy content for the players, and everyone should be happy as long as its not stat related, its 2017/2018 and these kind of things should be expected by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, sNrklhaai said:

would be disapointing. As a humble backer i paid 65 euro's and it stated cleary in a later stage the game would be around 40 euro's. From that i thought investing 25 extra towards the game and being part of alpha, beta early acces was reasonable. Would be rly bad if people can buy in soon for 10 or 20 euro's. I wouldn't like this at all, as i expected more gametime. Not sure if they even stated it would be only weekends (nights), because of that and some problems i only played like 25 minutes so far. :|

I agree with you, when i backed the Alpha (65 euro) i expected to be able to play the alpha/game all the time maybe not online but atleast in offline/LAN mode, even BigTuneAlex thought we could but the changed their minds last minute for some reason (security i believe).

It was a disappointment but atleast i thought we could play every weekend, but that changed to one weekend each month and only from 18:00 - 04:00 for only 2 days (which is way too short imo)

And after 3 months and 3 alpha's we hear nothing from the devs about the next alpha weekend and we find out from a sketchy twitch interview we will probably wont be able to play the game for a long time?

I know every negative post here towards the devs are being downvoted by white knights, but i cant hide the fact that i feel kinda dissapointed about the whole thing.

Edited by dodged
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dodged said:

I agree with you, when i backed the Alpha (65 euro) i expected to be able to play the alpha/game all the time maybe not online but atleast in offline/LAN mode, even BigTuneAlex thought we could but the changed their minds last minute for some reason (security i believe).

It was a disappointment but atleast i thought we could play every weekend, but that changed to one weekend each month and only from 18:00 - 04:00 for only 2 days (which is way too short imo)

And after 3 months and 3 alpha's we hear nothing from the devs about the next alpha weekend and we find out from a sketchy twitch interview we will probably wont be able to play the game for a long time?

I know every negative post here towards the devs are being downvoted by white knights, but i cant hide the fact that i feel kinda dissapointed about the whole thing.

Development schedules change. They've had an office flood earlier in the year, been going out to events like Gamescon, a dream hack event I'm pretty sure, and I was pretty sure I remember they went to an ESL event. These were the best part of a week for most of them, and they never promised weekly play testing, just that they would test on weekends. I couldn't see with a team their size them being able to add new weapons, maps ect or anything that would keep people interested. Across the three weekends I only played at two of them, 0.1 and 0.3 and I played for 6 or 7 hours at most. I was bored by that point, and only the most diehard testers would have played much more than they did during the weekends. There was one map, and a very small selection of weapons. If them left it open it would have cost money for the servers, and if you were able to play offline then there would have been security risks. The short testing periods each weekend allowed for concentrated and rapid testing of the game. You can even see how far the game has come with the balance, movement, optimization (even though there is a lot more room for improvement), and a lot of bugs were removed. I wouldn't have bothered playing it I knew the only change since the previous weekend was a fixed animation, or altered stats for weapons. In comparison the changes they put in were pretty good with weapons that they still haven't yet to show and they certainly have got maps which they haven't shown, they may use them, they may not considering how long ago it was that Phantasy said about them. 

I get that you're worried, but it's not just us who has tested the game. Several ESL casters like Pansy, machine and maybe some others (can't entirely remember who from the ESL looked at it) as well as COD 2 players, CS players as well as people such as Phantasy who went and tested it and gave advice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, sNrklhaai said:

would be disapointing. As a humble backer i paid 65 euro's and it stated cleary in a later stage the game would be around 40 euro's. From that i thought investing 25 extra towards the game and being part of alpha, beta early acces was reasonable. Would be rly bad if people can buy in soon for 10 or 20 euro's. I wouldn't like this at all, as i expected more gametime. Not sure if they even stated it would be only weekends (nights), because of that and some problems i only played like 25 minutes so far.

i hope they give us some rare skins and some other goodies since we payed 4x the early acces price - since they didnt stayed true to every weekend alpha i think it would be just fair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rmpel said:

i hope they give us some rare skins and some other goodies since we payed 4x the early acces price - since they didnt stayed true to every weekend alpha i think it would be just fair

But they never specified the number of alpha weekends? They stated there would be alpha weekends with new changes and fixes and focuses for each weekend. Don't know where you got the idea of them being every weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Masser said:

Development schedules change. They've had an office flood earlier in the year, been going out to events like Gamescon, a dream hack event I'm pretty sure, and I was pretty sure I remember they went to an ESL event. These were the best part of a week for most of them, and they never promised weekly play testing, just that they would test on weekends. I couldn't see with a team their size them being able to add new weapons, maps ect or anything that would keep people interested. Across the three weekends I only played at two of them, 0.1 and 0.3 and I played for 6 or 7 hours at most. I was bored by that point, and only the most diehard testers would have played much more than they did during the weekends. There was one map, and a very small selection of weapons. If them left it open it would have cost money for the servers, and if you were able to play offline then there would have been security risks. The short testing periods each weekend allowed for concentrated and rapid testing of the game. You can even see how far the game has come with the balance, movement, optimization (even though there is a lot more room for improvement), and a lot of bugs were removed. I wouldn't have bothered playing it I knew the only change since the previous weekend was a fixed animation, or altered stats for weapons. In comparison the changes they put in were pretty good with weapons that they still haven't yet to show and they certainly have got maps which they haven't shown, they may use them, they may not considering how long ago it was that Phantasy said about them. 

I get that you're worried, but it's not just us who has tested the game. Several ESL casters like Pansy, machine and maybe some others (can't entirely remember who from the ESL looked at it) as well as COD 2 players, CS players as well as people such as Phantasy who went and tested it and gave advice. 

The fact that you mention Pansy as a positive thing for this game makes me even more worried :P

Edited by dodged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Masser said:

But they never specified the number of alpha weekends? They stated there would be alpha weekends with new changes and fixes and focuses for each weekend. Don't know where you got the idea of them being every weekend.

Why Closed Alpha Weekends? (Dedicated Server uptime and Testing Playtimes)

As an extension of the fact that the Closed Alpha weekends are a testing phase for the game, it’s very important that we let you know that there will be dedicated server uptimes for playing the game and the reasoning behind why this is the case.  
 

The core reason is that we need time between play sessions and weekends to analyse the stats & data over the weekend and use your feedback to improve the game during the week. This way you’ll actively be a part of the community driven development we always promised, seeing weekly changes, additions and updates.

Another reason is that at no point during the Closed Alpha testing periods do we want testers to not be able to find others to play with. We currently have a list of Alpha Backers, Humble pre-purchasers and external testers to help us improve the game during these periods. We've purposefully aimed for our Alpha player ‘pool’ to be around a few thousand players, however this does not mean concurrent player counts will reach that during Alpha, in fact we expect concurrent player counts to be much lower.

This is in fact good for the game as it allows us to get more quality feedback from the hardcore few! These concurrent players will make up the core of our hardcore testing community from weekend to weekend. We will be taking on board your feedback through the forums and our social channels and then implement changes during the week, ready for the next alpha play test weekend.

 

i am fine with the current state of the game but i was expecting when i bought in for 60€ to play once a week or once every 2 weeks but now we have 2 wait often longer then 1month for 1 weekend

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rmpel said:

Why Closed Alpha Weekends? (Dedicated Server uptime and Testing Playtimes)

As an extension of the fact that the Closed Alpha weekends are a testing phase for the game, it’s very important that we let you know that there will be dedicated server uptimes for playing the game and the reasoning behind why this is the case.  
 

The core reason is that we need time between play sessions and weekends to analyse the stats & data over the weekend and use your feedback to improve the game during the week. This way you’ll actively be a part of the community driven development we always promised, seeing weekly changes, additions and updates.

Another reason is that at no point during the Closed Alpha testing periods do we want testers to not be able to find others to play with. We currently have a list of Alpha Backers, Humble pre-purchasers and external testers to help us improve the game during these periods. We've purposefully aimed for our Alpha player ‘pool’ to be around a few thousand players, however this does not mean concurrent player counts will reach that during Alpha, in fact we expect concurrent player counts to be much lower.

This is in fact good for the game as it allows us to get more quality feedback from the hardcore few! These concurrent players will make up the core of our hardcore testing community from weekend to weekend. We will be taking on board your feedback through the forums and our social channels and then implement changes during the week, ready for the next alpha play test weekend.

 

i am fine with the current state of the game but i was expecting when i bought in for 60€ to play once a week or once every 2 weeks but now we have 2 wait often longer then 1month for 1 weekend

The way it's phrased, it's true it sounds like it would be weekly. But as I said previously, the game itself was not in a fun state as per se. One map with less than a dozen usable guns. If you can play that for hours and hours every week, all the more power to you. But most of us aren't going to sit and play a very early alpha constantly and they would just be leaving their game open to security flaws and if they were renting servers then the cost of the servers would also be there. Most people only played for a few hours anyhow, and the player count would still be low if they opened it up more, considering most people would not play constantly. They would play a few hours after a new update and stop playing shortly afterward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Masser said:

The way it's phrased, it's true it sounds like it would be weekly. But as I said previously, the game itself was not in a fun state as per se. One map with less than a dozen usable guns. If you can play that for hours and hours every week, all the more power to you. But most of us aren't going to sit and play a very early alpha constantly and they would just be leaving their game open to security flaws and if they were renting servers then the cost of the servers would also be there. Most people only played for a few hours anyhow, and the player count would still be low if they opened it up more, considering most people would not play constantly. They would play a few hours after a new update and stop playing shortly afterward.

well back to the point since this wasnt so clear it would be fair to get some extra goodies for our hard earned money am i right? :D 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2017 at 1:22 PM, mazh said:

that's a lie told by many developers that many people believe today.
I agree with the DLC point, let's wait to see if they can hold the money desire on that point

I seriously don't see what your problem is. It's literally just a visual element that doesn't impact gameplay in any way. It's not as if they give you 20% more speed if you spend $50. 

 

Or, for people like you, they should make the pricetag $100 and give you the skins for free. Maybe that makes you feel better, but plenty of people can play without and would like a lower pricetag because of that.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there will be micro transactions it will just be like CS:GO and PUBG. All cosmetics, having some different looks.
Lets be real here, everyone likes to have more attention. That's the main reason people spend money on skins in CS:GO. Having people to compliment them with their inventory and/or skins ;) 

They probably won't come up with DLC's since it's obvious that that is killing recent games. People don't always buy the DLC's, resulting in a split community, resulting in half filled servers or even empty servers... no point for that to happen.

Adding mictro transaction for skins will still give them the money they would otherwise get with DLC's, but on another way, a way nobody is forced to buy it, it's a free choice, and it doesn't affect your gameplay.

Edited by Dark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/09/2017 at 2:30 PM, RAFF said:

I seriously don't see what your problem is. It's literally just a visual element that doesn't impact gameplay in any way. It's not as if they give you 20% more speed if you spend $50. 

 

Or, for people like you, they should make the pricetag $100 and give you the skins for free. Maybe that makes you feel better, but plenty of people can play without and would like a lower pricetag because of that.

If they have a price tag like 15-30, i'm totally ok with it. My problem is if they charge 50$ and then more for microtransactions.

Just because it doens't affect gameplay does not mean its ok to do it. "People like you" are the ones making this type of shit ok in every game nowadays

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, mazh said:

If they have a price tag like 15-30, i'm totally ok with it. My problem is if they charge 50$ and then more for microtransactions.

Just because it doens't affect gameplay does not mean its ok to do it. "People like you" are the ones making this type of shit ok in every game nowadays

They already said the game won't be that expensive.

It will be somewhere between 10 - 30 Don't worry about that. To be able to compete with all big companies they won't make it too expensive. And even if it costs 50$ and they have micro transactions? What is the problem? I don't see any issue. Nobody has to buy it.

I remember Cod having the ability to buy skins for your weapons, I never did it because i just didn't give a F@#k :) If people want to buy it, let them spend their money on it to support the game.

CS:GO's first update also said that you can now buy skins to "SUPPORT" the game you like. That's what micro transactions are about. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, mazh said:

If they have a price tag like 15-30, i'm totally ok with it. My problem is if they charge 50$ and then more for microtransactions.

Just because it doens't affect gameplay does not mean its ok to do it. "People like you" are the ones making this type of shit ok in every game nowadays

Already been stated that they want a cheap game by the devs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×