http://sluggy.com/comics/archives/daily/060207

Sorry, just had to point it out

Well, for a lot of smaller studios, they only have X amount of money to make the game. When that runs out, they either release the game or go bankrupt.

For christmas release games, they need to be out before christmas, no matter what. etc. A game that doesn't have any kind of market pressure for when it has to be released is pretty rare.

And as rare as they are, it is even rarer that the game is ever released if there isn't the pressure of a deadline.

Duke Nukem Forever, anyone?

Extending beta sounds like a great idea! I would love to see the kind of game Stardock could produce given that kind of timeframe and a healthy beta community. Count me in!

Frogboy really is smart. If he had come in here and said "the release is going to be postponed until August." there would have been weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth. This way he has us begginf for a postponement.

Brilliant!   (I have moved from being gung ho for the delay to neutral to still leaning for the delay.)

While I agree that the beta should be extended because in the end it will make the game that much better, I'm still sad because I will be shipping to boot before the game is released now.

in a word, hell yes.  ok that was two words.  The one thing that has always miffed me about Beta programs is that they aren't really to improve the gamer's play experience, but that they are designed to improve the technical performance of the game.  A beta that would allow the gameplay to be improved as well as the technical factors is I think what we all imagine when we hear about a beta test.  This would mean new content getting added not just tweaking existing content and the extended beta would also allow for extensive Mods to be available essentially at release rather than waiting for 6 months after release for the game to be expanded by user content.

You have a lot to read so I'll keep my comments short.

My only concern with the timeline laid out, is how everything meshes.  I think you might do better with a more complete product earlier in testing, and then a very long period for the last phase.  Either way, it does sound as though you are pressed to meet your current timelines, and I think the community as a whole are just excited to be able to finally take part in the development, and see what you have so far.

That's just my two bits.

Overall I’d say no, probably not what you should aim for. One part of it is simply that people dislike release schedules that slide. That’s why I’m something of a fan of not having a release schedule. However I think if you have given a time table, and that time table is something that is reasonable to meet, you should do that.

Also you need to ask yourself if having a longer beta really buys you anything. I mean the public beta testers, well we are just gamers. It isn’t as though you are getting any special quality testers or anything. So I don’t know that you get anything special by keeping the game from a wider release.

Remember that if you do get people who are particularly useful to the testing process, there isn’t any reason you can’t contact them to keep working on the game after release. Tell them “Hey you’ve been useful in the beta, you want to also beta test the new patches?”

I’d say there are two situations where you should consider doing it:

1)  There are things you’d like to add that you can’t unless you do it now. In that case, ok sure go for it. I wouldn’t want to see something permanently left out of the game because you had too aggressive a release cycle. However, if the things are something you plan on adding later, then I’d say do that.

2) You feel that the increase in quality is needed to get good ratings/reviews for the release. We know that release hype is important to a game. If you feel that those extra months will take you from a 8-9 score range up to a 9-10 score range then sure. Since reviews don’t count later content, if you think the content is needed sooner, then do it.

Either way, I’d decide soon. Push the schedule sooner rather than later. You’ll get more people annoyed if you get 50-75% way through the beta and then say “Know what? Let’s do that longer beta thing.” If you are going to do it, do it soon.

More or less, I’d say do what you think will make the most money. If you think a stronger release day will do that, and you think this will give that to you, then do it. Otherwise, stick with the original schedule.

+1 vote for long development cycle with constant feedback.  Nobody reviews v1.1 of a game, and most gamers' initial taste will be 1.0, as well.  There are a lot of games I've tasted and spat out because the initial release lacked polish - and most of them, I never touched again.  For all I know, they're playable by now...  but (especially when I have lost the CD and/or serial key) I'll never know.

I HATE wearing out the newness of a fresh game before it gets spit-shined.

This is an interesting proposal, and I think it has the potential to work very well.

I find that on average, a strategy game takes at least 6 months to over a year after release before it finds it's feet in terms of balance and bug/exploit fixes. Extending the beta to what you are proposing would essentially eliminate this period when the game releases at retail (since its basically covered by the extended beta), while also allowing the game to integrate community feedback much easier during this period than you could with a game which has already gone gold since the game is still essentially in development mode.

A very good idea, not only will the game have more development time and mode player feedback, but I'll actually get a chance to pre-order it . I'm going to gat payd again in december 

Iam all for extended beta. And I am really glad you are thinking about it. This game is shaping to be very unique and great TBS. On today market, there is alot of good games, but only few exceptional ones. I would like this game to become classic, and extended beta would definitely help that.

Isn't 32 players a bit too much? They wouldn't have the time to play an entire game and ..

Oh well .. what am I saying? Who are we to stop people playing their game for a whole year? Give us options.

How much sophisticated should be dungeons? Do you know Dungeon Master?

How much sophisticated should be quests ? Well ... If I remember well there's a way to achieve victory through a huge quest. So I hope quests are more than "Get this. Kill that. Earn this." Why not some quests about meaning of life? Hum .. well ... back on reality.

How sophisticated tactical battles ? You shouldn't even ask that question . Best. Best. Best. Let there be things like attacks of opportunity, like morale, like terrain bonii/malii, like fates of war (getting blind, losing an arm and still fighting), like the possibility for captain to retire and giving bonii to new trained warriors, like "perks" (think fantasy wars/Elven Legacy) for your troops, etc.

How big of a scope? What player would answer "Oh no don't give it a big scope. I want tiny adventures." Who !?! Did I say something about quest for meaning of life? (or earth or fire or etc.)

Did I say : give us options?

I you have time, use it.