Planetary Annihilation costs 90$ (right now)

[Candidus]

EDIT: I'm not accusing you of all of these things, I just wanted to address this general philosophy that is sometimes found among gamers.

Hey, I don't mind this sentiment at all: "Video games aren't really something to get upset about". If that's how you feel, then adopting that stance isn't wrong for you.

But.

They're my hobby. Not a pass-time. As well as being happy, hopeful and feeling rewarded by their hobbies, people will and should feel angry, frustrated and disappointed by them at times. People's investments in their hobbies don't stop at the financial.

I don't think people can tell others what their hobbies are worth to them, or how they ought to react to developments within them. Whatever is right for you is only right for you.

 

[Crozekiel]

He never said they were all trolls. Re-read the post you keep quoting... It says "some of the first posts were..." not "all of the posts are..." and it sounds like the tone of the first few posts over there made the OP uncomfortable and they wanted a to have a different discussion about it.

 

[Playful Pony]

They should NOT have put is on Steam like this, they should at least have waited for it to get into BETA... Maybe it's being put there so people that already backed can get a Steam version for easier downloads and updates? I haven't recieved an email or anything to indicate that, but I also haven't checked out their website in a while... I think the rewards they set up are pretty reasonable, but they come out TERRIBLE putting it on steam like this. Providing alpha access to people the way Minecraft did, by making it cheap early on and then increasing the price, would have felt like a major slap in the face of the many early backers that shelled out $90 for the Alpha access bonus, so I can certainly see why they wouldn't go lower than that.

Again, stupid move putting it on Steam so soon, the way they did their backing tiers they should really just wait for the game to be ready and released before they put it on there... Bad move Uber Entertainment!

 

[GoaThief]

They should NOT have put is on Steam like this, they should at least have waited for it to get into BETA... Maybe it's being put there so people that already backed can get a Steam version for easier downloads and updates? I haven't recieved an email or anything to indicate that, but I also haven't checked out their website in a while... I think the rewards they set up are pretty reasonable, but they come out TERRIBLE putting it on steam like this. Providing alpha access to people the way Minecraft did, by making it cheap early on and then increasing the price, would have felt like a major slap in the face of the many early backers that shelled out $90 for the Alpha access bonus, so I can certainly see why they wouldn't go lower than that.

Again, stupid move putting it on Steam so soon, the way they did their backing tiers they should really just wait for the game to be ready and released before they put it on there... Bad move Uber Entertainment!

Why is it a bad move? I really don't understand why anyone is getting so angry over this. Everything has been clearly stated and the reasons are transparent and acceptable.

Honestly, the sense of entitlement - and it's pretty much the first time I've used that expression in a gaming context - is astounding.

 

[Crozekiel]

It isn't really transparent and clearly stated... Its on the scroll for the main store page in steam, just says the name of the game, and the price of $89.99... Then you click the store page, and it says its early access and the price was determined by kickstarter. Anything beyond that, and you have to either go to the game's website (outside of steam) or click through their news feed. Which is a large part of the problem.

I love how all the defenders keep talking about the "sense of entitlement" that apparently only the nay-sayers have... Like the kickstarter backers don't have a "sense of entitlement" that no one else will get the game cheaper than they did, or the developers don't have a "sense of entitlement" to the $90 they think their early alpha testing experience is worth. I feel like consumers are entitled to know, clearly and without digging, that they plan to release the game in 6 months for less than half what it costs to get now, especially since this is NOT a standard practice, or a practice done by anyone else currently...

I am sorry I sound "entitled" when I would have liked them to start with the planned retail price of the game (and a release date) as opposed to making it seem like the game is just $90, or worse, it starts at $90 and is going to go up from there, like every other game that does the early access model. I don't see how it isn't either poor planning or purposefully burying the lede(which is very shady).

 

[CCountZero]

I don't get it... well I mean I guess it makes sense to pay more for early access in theory but the idea behind the current trend is that you're rewarding early adopters by giving them a discount because they're investing in you as well as helping you find bugs. I guess it all comes down to how finished the game is before you can decide whether they're doing you a favor by letting you play early or the other way around.

Far as I understand it, it's sort of a way to weed out the people who buy Alpha access to games, and then proceed to complain about the game, with no regard for the whole Alpha part.

 

[generals3]

Why is it a bad move? I really don't understand why anyone is getting so angry over this. Everything has been clearly stated and the reasons are transparent and acceptable.

Honestly, the sense of entitlement - and it's pretty much the first time I've used that expression in a gaming context - is astounding.

Transparent? Not that much.

Reasons are acceptable? Not at all. The kickstarter and money donated there is totally unrelated to price they should ask to costumers. And as far as i know the kickstarter didn't mention the fact "no one else will have access to early alpha/beta testing without paying as much as you guys did!"

And than comes the fact this sets a horrible precedent, paying to be able to alpha/beta test? Really? We now have to pay to help devs debug the game?!

And the only people who feel entitled are the kickstarter backers who think everyone should throw money away like they did and the devs who think asking people to pay extra money to help them improve their game is ok.

 

[GoaThief]

Why is it a bad move? I really don't understand why anyone is getting so angry over this. Everything has been clearly stated and the reasons are transparent and acceptable.

Honestly, the sense of entitlement - and it's pretty much the first time I've used that expression in a gaming context - is astounding.

Transparent? Not that much.

Reasons are acceptable? Not at all. The kickstarter and money donated there is totally unrelated to price they should ask to costumers. And as far as i know the kickstarter didn't mention the fact "no one else will have access to early alpha/beta testing without paying as much as you guys did!"

And than comes the fact this sets a horrible precedent, paying to be able to alpha/beta test? Really? We now have to pay to help devs debug the game?!

And the only people who feel entitled are the kickstarter backers who think everyone should throw money away like they did and the devs who think asking people to pay extra money to help them improve their game is ok.

Please explain how it's anything but transparent. Where is the misleading text or lack of information? Everything is clearly stated as far as I can see.

People who kickstarted the game are also consumers, they aren't investors seeking a percentage return or something similar. Neither did the kickstarter state that alpha/beta access would be free or even open to the general public at all. The precedent of charging for early access was set many years ago and is perfectly viable, to be fair the word "beta" basically means "demo" in this day and age.

It's entirely your opinion that backers threw their money away (I'd wager nearly every single backer views their payment as money well spent), and more importantly how is a developer ASKING (not demanding or bullying) if more people would like to get involved with the develpment process and help with the costs of the game if they missed it the first time around, entitlement? Explain that one to me please. It's offering something to their consumers, people can always say no and wait for the beta or retail... and that is exactly what those with an overblown sense of entitlement should be doing instead of wailing, gnashing their teeth and DEMANDING that the company bend to their unreasonable will. The latter is very much the definition of self-entitled and it's obviously completely different from the former two groups mentioned. I'm still scratching my head at how blinkered some people are seeming to be.

 

[Imthatguy]

EALA (later Danger Close and now DICE LA) can never be forgiven for Command And Conquer 4.

 

[Crozekiel]

Please explain how it's anything but transparent. Where is the misleading text or lack of information? Everything is clearly stated as far as I can see.

The lack of information is on the steam store page... I have said it like 4 times now. You either have to go to their website, or dig through the posts clicking all the "read more" links and crap to get to the fact that its retail cost is less than half what they are charging now. Companies have been offering early (alpha/beta) access to games for a while if you pre-order a game, and free to play models have been offering things like founder's packs with cash shop currency and extra stuff that also offer early access, but this is the first I have seen that charges you more than double the retail cost of the game (or in the case of free to play games, the cost of the currency you get), so no I wouldn't say there is precedent for it. Not to mention the store page doesn't say that the current price is over double the retail cost of the game unless you go digging...

 

[GoaThief]

Please explain how it's anything but transparent. Where is the misleading text or lack of information? Everything is clearly stated as far as I can see.

The lack of information is on the steam store page... I have said it like 4 times now.

How is this a lack of information? The store page:

[http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/43/bu89.jpg/]

The "read more" on Kickstarter, Early Access and the Price (one click on the above page and still on Steam):

[http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/28/odj6.jpg/]

Again, how is that anything but transparent?

Free to play games and their business model have absolutely nothing to do with this retail title, please stop with the bogus comparisons.

 

[generals3]

Please explain how it's anything but transparent. Where is the misleading text or lack of information? Everything is clearly stated as far as I can see.

Cf: Crozekiel's posts.

People who kickstarted the game are also consumers, they aren't investors seeking a percentage return or something similar. Neither did the kickstarter state that alpha/beta access would be free or even open to the general public at all. The precedent of charging for early access was set many years ago and is perfectly viable, to be fair the word "beta" basically means "demo" in this day and age.

No they aren't consumers, they are donors. They're like those people who give money to build a school and get their name on a bronze plaque. The only difference is that they told you you'd get early access and other stuff instead of a bronze plaque. People who invest in kickstarters do so because they believe that helping people create something + the reward offered is worth their money. This is totally different to a costumer who invests, not in the making of a product, but in the product itself.

And I humbly disagree, i don't think beta = demo. Clearly some gamers have allowed devs to pretend it is but i think we're getting screwed over.

It's entirely your opinion that backers threw their money away (I'd wager nearly every single backer views their payment as money well spent),

Actually it's more like the opinion of those who think the money they spent justifies ripping off potential costumers who might want early access. They probably feel like they would have thrown their money away if others could get perks they got for more.

and more importantly how is a developer ASKING (not demanding or bullying) if more people would like to get involved with the develpment process and help with the costs of the game if they missed it the first time around, entitlement?

Because they somehow believe that their early access is worth 90$?! They sure are very pretentious and full of themselves. (I'll admit the word "entitled" doesn't fit 100% for the devs)

It's offering something to their consumers, people can always say no and wait for the beta or retail... and that is exactly what those with an overblown sense of entitlement should be doing instead of wailing, gnashing their teeth and DEMANDING that the company bend to their unreasonable will. The latter is very much the definition of self-entitled and it's obviously completely different from the former two groups mentioned. I'm still scratching my head at how blinkered some people are seeming to be.

Nono, asking people to pay X $ for a service is just as entitled as other people asking the service for Y$. It's the same, both are basically telling each other their demands. So in both cases the word "entitled" applies just as much (up to you to determine how entitled the devs feel!)

 

[GoaThief]

/snippage

See the above images? Transparency.

Also note on the Steam page in mahooosive blue box/text, "Get instant access and start playing, get involved with this game as it develops". Following that, "By getting early access you are helping us to shape and form the game. Because we take feedback seriously we think that prioritizing access to the game early on is important". Paying for early access is pretty much akin to being a kickstarter donator, consider it Steam's own version if you will. The word "entitled" is not a bad thing in and of itself, perhaps this is where confusion is reigning? Backers/Early Access payees are entitled to the things they paid for, access to the alpha is one of those perks amongst others. There is nothing wrong with this. People going apeshit over the price of something they don't understand or have any right to be angry over whatsoever are demonstrating their egotistical sense of self-entitlement, which is a bad thing. They think they are entitled to whatever they want, when they want with no regard to anything else. Does that help clear things up a little? I hope so as I'm a little pushed for time now and it's an interesting discussion.

As for the demo and beta thing, I probably agree with you there but it's not really important or essential to the topic at hand.

 

[ChaplainOrion]

Oh well screw you OP, I thought you were talking about a device that could destroy the planet for $90. How the hell is a madmen on a budget supposed to blackmail the world if all these fancy weapons costs millions of dollars!?

OT:This sounds reasonable, it's like a patient humble bundle.

 

[Playful Pony]

Why is it a bad move? I really don't understand why anyone is getting so angry over this. Everything has been clearly stated and the reasons are transparent and acceptable.

Honestly, the sense of entitlement - and it's pretty much the first time I've used that expression in a gaming context - is astounding.

It's a bad move because of the nonsense it has stired up... I don't at all agree with the people complaining here, but I think it should have been possible to see it coming. A lot of people that had never even heard of Planetary Annihiliation would see it on Steam for $90, and people being how they are it doesn't surprise me that they reacted the way they did... What does surprise me is that they put the game up on Steam so early in the first place, because the way they did their alpha, beta and release backing tiers do not corespond with anything else you find with early access on Steam. This formula seems to belong on Kickstarter and people are perfectly happy with it, but as soon as it shows up on Steam early-access people expect the kind of deal that minecraft did and many other games are adopting.

I'm just hoping the game doesn't gain too much bad publicity for this, cause I already backed at $90 half a year ago or so, and I'm really excited about this game! Played the alpha a little bit and everything is looking oh so promising =3.

 

[generals3]

See the above images? Transparency.

I checked myself on steam and it seems it was more transparent than i was lead to believe so i concede that point.

Paying for early access is pretty much akin to being a kickstarter donator, consider it Steam's own version if you will.

It's not the same at all. As I have mentioned before, a pledger is a donor, a person buying this pack is just a buyer, a costumer. And both are very different and as such the treatment they receive cannot be compared. Our faculty built a new a building thanks to donors and sponsors, the sponsors got marketing in return while the donors just got their name on bronze plaques, they both invested money though. But it's normal they got different things because they paid for different reasons. Just like a pledger pays for different reasons than a pre-orderer.

The word "entitled" is not a bad thing in and of itself, perhaps this is where confusion is reigning? Backers/Early Access payees are entitled to the things they paid for, access to the alpha is one of those perks amongst others. There is nothing wrong with this.

And no one ever said that was wrong. However since they are used as an excuse for the pricing this suggests an attitude of "I paid 90$ for it so you have to as well!", that however is a shitty attitude. Mainly since both contexts are not comparable.

People going apeshit over the price of something they don't understand or have any right to be angry over whatsoever are demonstrating their egotistical sense of self-entitlement, which is a bad thing. They think they are entitled to whatever they want, when they want with no regard to anything else. Does that help clear things up a little? I hope so as I'm a little pushed for time now and it's an interesting discussion.

Something they don't understand? What's not to understand? They ask 50$ for testing their game in alpha and beta phase. That's very easy to comprehend.

And we don't feel entitled to whatever we want. We do however feel like it is our right to tell Uber their pricing is absurd and that they won't have our ???. Telling sellers we don't like their prices is the only thing we costumers have. Are we supposed to be mindless sheep who bend over and spread our ass cheeks?

As for the demo and beta thing, I probably agree with you there but it's not really important or essential to the topic at hand.

It is essential. Because the pricing only makes sense if alpha/beta testing a game is somehow something people should pay for. If you agree with me than you should be appalled by Uber's pricing like me.

 

[tilmoph]

I saw this pop up on my daily list of Steam ads and thought "Huh? That might be the most expensive game I've ever seen them list." Had no idea what it was; honestly, still don't. Still, I did note the little "get involved with its development" thing. Seemed a bit unusual to me, but it makes sense. It's just like those special edition releases that cost like 50-100% more than just the game and add a whole bunch of trinkets, only instead of trinkets, you get to influence the development and direction of the game. Neat. Not worth it to me, but still, neat.

As for transparency, I'm not sure what people are talking about here. Right in the little one window ad, it blatantly tells you that you're paying to get involved with the development of the game as much as the game itself. You can argue whether that's worth $90 or not, which would come down to whether or not you see enough potential in this game, but still, it's as transparent as can be.

 

[Colt47]

I know people who love TA like the child they never had. My own experience with it was limited; it seemed a fun enough game, before it started to suffer from the M:TG syndrome of "What's that...? What does it do? How does it fit in with everything else...?"

Oh yeah, Total Annihilation was an odd game in the genre for a lot of different reasons and that was one of them. It was a game built on filling roles rather than a rock paper scissors relationship with other units. Heck, there were multiple equally viable means to engage in an offense and even older Tech 1 units still kept up some usefulness in the late game. That is actually why I loved it so much: it gave a proverbial sandbox take on strategy that hasn't been accurately reproduced since, even in the Supreme Commander series.

Aw great, now I want to go to Good old games and get the complete pack just to see how many units my computer can handle before going nuclear.