Last time I pre-ordered a game it was because I got a free game for pre-ordering. This was when Tales of Zestiria was coming out for PC and they gave Tales of Symphonia to those who pre-ordered. Totally worth it.
The Gamer‘s Code:
There is no impulse, there is Judgment.
Through judgment, I avoid Regret.
Through prudence, I embrace Quality.
Through quality, I experience Joy.
In the modern era of game design? The single player probably requires and always on all the time connection along with a store account and credit card on file.
I mean, considering how they were championing their horde tech. Im pretty sure it probably has something to do with that.
Im sure the game runs fine and dandy, the main problem is it'll run like absolute dogshit on lower end machines, and thats probably where this Cancellation comes from.
Its almost like an escape from tarkov problem.
Half the game can be run on a shitty computer, but the other half will run at 3fps unless you have a good computer. They probably want to avoid this, if i had to imagine
>the main problem is it'll run like absolute dogshit on lower end machines
*Xbox series S has entered the chat.*
Bet anyone $5 that this is the problem
Yeah, definitely feeling a sense of ruh-roh around this game.
Something about it just isn't gelling like they want it to.
SM1 was a solid 6/10 for me, and SM2 wasn't looking much better from the previews I've seen.
The Total War Warhammer games are amazing, and the first Space Marine game was a big surprise at how good it was
Edit: reading comprehension fail, your point is correct 😂
I actually really enjoyed Warhammer 40k:Mechanicus as well. I dint even usually like xcom rts type games but I probably put 40 hours into that game without playing anything else.
I've learned to wait with all owl cat games for them to release a few months of patches before playing. The added benefit is buying the games at a discount. I paid through it a month ago with no major issues and it was pretty awesome for what it's worth.
Not really. Releasing an open beta is A LOT of work. Saber is not a huge team and if they decided to spend more time on optimization instead of a marketing gimmick - they will probably be better off this way.
I mean, it is, we should be a little cautious...but also I think it's sort of a better move than a fake beta test where no feedback is going to matter because they already have bigger fish to fry before launch.
If I find a prelaunch deal on a Fromsoft game I'm preordering because the last 6 games they've made I've either really liked them or they are on my all-time great list.
Outside of that I agree.
This is when it's the most dangerous. I'm the same as you- Loved the original, all the trailers looked good and got me hyped. But I am absolutely not preordering for that exact reason.
They understand how to market to me, but did they follow through on making the game what I want it to be? That's an entirely different question. They won't be getting my money until I can be sure of it. It's a completely different studio, and hell, it's been over ten years since that first game. My tastes have changed, I have changed.
Back then it was like, "wow, this game is a super faithful recreation of that hobby I had as a kid!", it was a pleasant surprise. Whereas now, not only do I have expectations to meet, it also comes with a lot of baggage about the Warhammer franchise as a whole, that has become much more well known over this past decade.
Totally not the same but: unless you're a big 40k fan and collectible statue collector.
Personally I think my pre-order was worth it just for the statue: there isn't many 40k statues surprisingly. They've got 2 Titus ones: the $300 one that comes with collectors edition, or the $1300 way cooler and bigger one. The $1300 is too much for me in all regards so the $300, isn't too bad for a statue of the size and quality in the collectors edition.
I'm really excited just for the statue lol I've been a 40k fan for most of my life and Titus fan for a lot of it. I'm very skeptical of the game but at least the statue they have looks legit.
I bought CE for Titus figure. This man deserve this and we'll, I guess single player will be OK but it looks like coop and pvp was added after they saw that he'll divers made shit load of money.
This is a canceling of beta test but it's still coming out. Not a delay. They just don't want people to see what a heap it is because they don't plan to have resources to make changes based on the beta feedback.
Elden Ring's biggest delay was over a security issue though, not gameplay. Someone found a pretty serious exploit in Dark Souls 3 online and FromSoftware realised they'd probably copied the exploit over since they reused a lot of code.
STALKER 2 release date was pushed back almost a year specifically for some negative gameplay feedback when they were demoing the game in booths at various game expos
Personally that sounds like its a good delay and its purely gameplay related. Still to see if STALKER 2 is going to flop or not.
There were always a lot of cheaters online. That wasn't the exploit, the exploit allowed for remote code execution on the victim's computer. This was publicized sometime in Jan 2022, very close to ER's release date.
I dont like this.
My cautious optimism is turning into cynical curiosity.
Best case scenario they know the game runs great (but without a beta how could they REALLY know?)
Worst case they got a lot of pre orders and they don't want people playing a demo to their turd sandwich.
Most modern betas are really just sales and marketing and very little actual beta testing
The closest a modern beta gets to useful testing is scale/netcode for the multiplayer, which mind you quite a few games have problems with on launch
But honestly a beta to tune game play or features needs more than 2-3 months to be useful anyways. You need people playing, time to collect feedback, dev time to figure options then implement them, then roll them out and actually see if they made it better.
Mass testing is always good
No matter how good of an internal testing team your company had - it can never test every single combination under the sun that bits and pieces of your game interact with multitude of entertwining variables.
There will be miscalculation, there will be honest underestimation, there is unexpected deadlock or broken logic
And this is what is going to be hopefully found during beta test - people would be more forgiving if they found this in beta instead of on full release
Believe me when i tell you mass testing is largely irrelevant, and this comes from a QA guy.
While its true, most games are tested internally pretty well, often times developers subcontract out QA testing and they already have most combinations of stupid shit and happenings under the sun already tested.
Of course, this doesn't mean its all fool proof. But still. More testing is nice, but its not necessary in most cases. This is also not true with all games, but depending on the launch polish levels, its very evident which ones did this, and which ones didn't.
And if i didn't have to adhere to the boogeyman, i could straight up tell you which ones did and did not.
What happened in this case is they most likely realized their swarm tech is r wording lower end computers or is consuming way more resources then they expected/ugly memory leak popped up. and likely are going back to the drawing board last second to reoptimize the game for lower end machines.
I have no doubt on higher end machines that the game as it currently exists runs fine. But most games have to design in mind for the 1000 series animals like me that still haven't gotten mogged by nvidia's attempts to murder their gpu via driver updates.
I've worked in the field too though not as a QA but alongside them.
My observation is - internal testin is inadaquate because it is heavily pressured by the weather forecast of the mood swing of the higher up (from as low as lead to as high as product owner)
They will end up with a list of known issue, known tricky thing that might be an issue in certain condition, certain concern that will be usually discared by others
And this list will usually be glossed over, ignored or skip many of it if the higher up were to pressure them
Example of such pressure
1. We have been dialling the product back multiple time they told us we can no longer do that
2. Boss need this product ahead of his yada yada agenda
3. No big problem you are just overreacting
4. We might be seen on negative light if we didnt meet their expectation (some lead unfortunately didnt fight for the team but instead just follow the whims of the MBA higher up who know jack shit about technical challenges or concerns)
And even if there are huge thing bugging the game - QA absolutely are in no power to gatekeep the release of the game. They too had to keep up with the demand of the higher up.
+++++++++
Public test is desirable to me in my opinion because their view is unfiltered - they really had nothing helding them back for withhelding opinion because of political drama, retaliation, negative feedback, burning bridge or etc.
The masses have multitude of unique combination of hardware, software and progression/interaction in game - this is simply incomparable to any internal or external QA out there.
Even if the system or app is tested on the same version of browser, operating system (mobile or desktop) - it would go sideways for some customer because they apparently have some other thing within their environment that adversely affecting the system (2 similar phone experiencing polar opposite performance for the same game for an example)
Not demeaning any QA out there at all. Its just, there had been variety of game came out broken or barely operable at launch - what went wrong? (Rhetoric, we could probably guess)
+++++
At the end of the day, if the game had issue, wouldnt it be better for us to finding out about it in beta
Rather than leaving it up to them to decide whether to green light and release regardless
>At the end of the day, if the game had issue, wouldnt it be better for us to finding out about it in beta
>Rather than leaving it up to them to decide whether to green light and release regardless
Not really. Its impossible to meaningfully fix these issues alongside a public beta because generally speaking major fixes do not happen overnight.
If the public beta is scrapped, its a bad look, but it also puts a tremendous amount of pressure off the developers themselves, and frees up a lot of internal resources in order to actually *try* to fix the problem. So think 70% of the solution is found/implemented instead of 15%
In this case, the problem is probably the swarm tech destroying lower end computers. So now they have a lot more resources available to try and optimize it so it doesn't completely anihilate lower end pcs
>Public test is desirable to me in my opinion because their view is unfiltered - they really had nothing helding them back for withhelding opinion because of political drama, retaliation, negative feedback, burning bridge or etc.
Private large scale QA tests are more or less the same thing. These aren't handed out to random people, they are often times selected because of their reported hardware. So while they don't have a massive sample size of tens of thousands, a sample size of say 100 or 300 is sufficient as a starting point for fixing issues/optimizing.
>My observation is - internal testin is inadaquate because it is heavily pressured by the weather forecast of the mood swing of the higher up (from as low as lead to as high as product owner)
Internal testing is inadequate, however again. Many companies subcontract out their QA testing. So instead of a big fancy public beta test, you get a smaller sample size. But still a large amount of lower paid testers to basically do it for you. But in a more directed manner.
Unless you are intentionally hunting for the bug that exists between the bonds of atoms, a sample size of 100 QA testers is effectively the same as several thousand. The only difference being you go through a big process to get your test approved and ready to ship for consoles/pc. But this takes away from your teams ability to actually solve any major issues or optimize for a while because they basically have to have their 2 eyes on the test to make sure the Advertisement doesn't go sideways.
While I fully agree that cancelling the beta sends up a red flag, and makes me think they know they have a stinker on their hands and don't want people to call them on it early like they did with that "AAAA" pirate game that I can't remember the name of... It doesn't actually matter.
Because I cannot remember the last time a company did a beta test, or anything like that, and actually listened to the fucking feedback they got. Every single time there's a beta, or test branch for an already released game, they put out the content, there's issues, and the testers go "we told them about this exact issue like 400 times during testing." They could have this closed beta, and the only feedback could be "hey, y'all forgot to flip the switch from 'broke' to 'fixed.'" And they would still release the motherfucker without flipping the switch.
That's a lot of assumptions, though.
If you have a beta period with any significant amount of participants, you will be receiving an absolute shitload of tickets or feedback items. And nearly always far too many to process and execute within the development time you have. Priorities must be set.
It's extremely frustrating as a player, but I don't see any world where a developer has an active interest in receiving critical feedback and not implementing it. The only reasons that could cause this are either lack of time, lack of expertise, or something going wrong with procedure (i.e. ticket not escalated properly, ticket closed accidentally, etc).
People that play a beta and expect all bugs to be fixed a couple weeks later are kind of crazy.
At the same time developers who release betas so soon before release aren't entirely honest with their approach, IMO, unless clearly stating it's for stress testing. Otherwise it does just feel like a glorified demo.
Cancelling this beta makes me cautious, but even as someone that adored SM1 and played it constantly on release (Until BF3 came out), I wasn't going to pre-order and still won't, as I want to see how things go for a bit - an attitude I try to take with most games nowadays.
Did you know there’s entire companies who just do mass play tests? They advertise every year at GDC, GQF and others.
Public beta *should* be marketing first and mass, mostly free feedback on balancing - with ideally your game being in a state where only some edge-case bugs are found by players.
The fact they’re cancelling the public beta specifically to work on optimization and fixes means they hit a cutoff point internally and the game still wasn’t in an acceptable state. Cancelling the public beta hurts them a bit PR wise, but is far better than risking an Arkham Knight situation.
I’d hope they do some mass stress tests for their multiplayer.
Since there is pre-order options where you can play the game 4 days early, all we have to do is let the people that bought those editions play, watch their gameplay and make a decision then and see if there really is any major issues, if it's good then purchase! If it's not then simply don't.
They've run private playtests for a while now.
Many people have been able to play it in said playtests, and at events, the common conclusion is that the game was good. It just needed to be more optimised, which is what the developers have chosen to spend this remaining time on before release.
Keep in mind that the team on Space Marine 2 isn't as big as other big game developers and they don't have the resources to spare if they want to get the game out by September 5th.
If they were to continue with the public beta, they would have to make a build, have it go through Xbox/PlayStation certification, set up servers, and make sure it actually works properly. Certification alone can take over a week, and even then, it can easily take much longer if any issues are found. All of this would involve multiple developers who would be put to better use, making sure the final product is working for release.
These days, beta's are more of a publicity/advertisement. They're rarely used for actual player feedback. Considering the game is now 10 weeks away, having a public beta would be pointless. Anything that would come from the beta in terms of feedback wouldn't have any effect on the final product until after it releases.
They're also good at detecting weird hardware/software conflicts.
It's pretty much impossible to make a game run the same way it does on every machine. Without a public beta of some kind.
Naw this is untrue, so many, SO MANY, games get released and run with very little to no issues without a beta. Betas, especially ones that happen so close to release, like this, are just demos and marketing fodder as they would have 0 time to actually capture, synthesize data and make any type of significant change.
Why are people pushing this “it’s shit” narrative?
*They know there’s problems, that’s why they canceled this so they can try to fix them all*.
Sounds like their QA and play test groups found far too many things that need work to even get value out of a public beta. A public beta is good marketing first - and second is a way to get a large number of eyes on the product before release.
I've been doing software QA for about 10 years and while this isn't good news to me, it does suggest that leadership is willing to make the right decisions about big scary problems instead of getting on conference calls and lying to everyone that everything is fine.
It reads like someone finished reading the current ticket backlog and realized how much of QA's findings are still left outstanding in their current internal test build. Someone then had to make the difficult call not to send this out to the public, probably because there's a whole lot of already identified showstopper issues.
The point of an OPEN beta is not just to find more bugs, it's also to gather the kind of invaluable gameplay data and edge case testing that only throwing a hundreds or thousands of frothing players at your game can provide. If the public gets their hands on the Space Marine 2 open beta and they can't even play for more than 10 minutes at a stretch without crashing then there's very little value being generated, but lots of playerbase good will going down the drain.
TL:DR, this is not good, but it is what a responsible development studio should probably do if faced with a difficult JIRA backlog and a looming deadline.
I think the fear is that this decision is very rarely made the proper way. So how bad was it to get it to trigger?
Is it a good management team pulling the stop because the game is in a bad place or is it a who cares what management team because it’s so bad even they couldn’t justify it.
Everyone here going “uh oh, that’s bad!”, but isn’t this exactly what we want? Like, if they had put out the public beta in a shit state, wouldn’t yall be whining about why didn’t they just push back the beta?
It would be one thing if they also delayed the launch, but they haven't (yet). Just canceling the beta for "polish" but not delaying tells me they're just trying to avoid bad publicity before launch.
All a beta does is test servers and network stability, they have their own internal and external QA testers to find bugs and shit.
If they are confident in their servers (which is possible) cancelling a beta to focus on optimisation/bugs/none server related issues is honestly pretty run of the mill and normal.
I wonder if it's because of shipping? See they have statues with the collectors edition, so I wonder if they'd have to cancel a freight or something and can't rebook a new one in time so they're stuck with the date?
Yes I am thinking best case scenario.
I find it weird how people give so much significance to a fucking beta.
It's just a marketing event that takes up quite a lot of ressources.
Cancelling the thing and using the ressources to ensure a better experience at launch is a bad thing in which universe exactly?
It all comes down to intent. The worst case interpretation is that cancelling the Open Beta is pre-emptive damage control, because it will make it clear the game is in a bad state.
If the Open Beta & Full Release were both just delayed, I think the intent would be much clearer, or at least less likely to be interpreted in a negative light.
It's what I thought for Cyberpunk2077...
"Yeah, it's just polish" "Critics say it's good" "pushing the release later isn't a bad sign, it's CDPR, they don't want a witcher3 controversy again" etc
It was a fucking disaster at launch.
Exactly. Cancelling the beta frees up time and resources to fix things because they can focus entirely on development work. They obviously know it's not ready for the public so this feels like an appropriate measure. If it's still not ready, they can delay it later.
Yeah worse case if its so bad and they can't fix the issues they will delay it again. The amount of money they can potentially get for this game will be crazy, they don't want to lose out on that.
In addition to the "but they just cancelled the beta, not delayed it" this cancellation comes after already delaying the launch of the game from February 2024.
So the game wasn't coming together, they delayed, then even after the delay decided to cancel the public beta?
That's... Not good.
Gamers are the worst audience of all time. They will whine about *literally anything*
Too much communication? Whine
Too little communication? Whine
Exactly the right amount of communication? Still whining!
/r/patientgamers calling!
I legit cannot way to try this especially after seeing the most recent videos. I read let get excited about games this way.
But there’s so many games I haven’t played. Why rush.
If it is good I am playing it ASAP. But I am biased, I love 40K and want bigger/better games in this setting because it is one of the coolest universes in any game/movie/book/or show in my opinion. If the game is great I feel they deserve full price for it. But won't be surprised if it is a mess.
There was never any officially announced beta, just a general beta sign up for any focus interactive game.
And they are giving players a skin in the game for just signing up for that as a “we’re sorry it’s not the direction we took but here’s something to say thanks for the excitement”
There have been closed test and public builds for conventions. It’s not like they are doing some shady shit to hide things from players, most if not all resulting feedback is the game just needed some optimization clean up.
Gamers not blow things out of proportion challenge:
Impossible difficulty
I don’t understand why people are upset. What do you want anymore? If they release a shitty beta, I’m sure there’d be just as many people complaining about it, as if they’d cancelled the beta to continue working on it instead. Going one way or the other over this is nonsense. Just sit back and wait for the game to release.
So to play Devil's advocate for a moment:
The game has already been delayed, more than once.
It is quite possible that corporate isn't willing to invest any more time and money, regardless of the games state.
A public beta would have announced that the game might not be fit for public release, before the release date.
Cancelling the beta, without pushing back the release date, could be a sign that things are going very poorly.
Or it could all just be a nothing burger. But it is probably best to cancel your pre-order, if you have one.
Playing the counter devils advocate. How many games in recent years had actual beta play testing and idiotic gamers get fucking bent out of shape that it doesnt run like a fully released AAA game and go full meltdown mode? Causing a PR nightmare and making investors freak out pull funding and effecting the quality of the final product.
I wont say gamers are totally at fault here. The gaming industry has beyond bastardized what a beta or early access actually is. Boomer moment but back in the day a beta test was universally a rough shitty laggy buggy experience and everyone knew it. We played it to help make the final product better and to get to play a rough outline of the game early. Everyone knew what it was. Then AAA's figured out they could get 20$ more out of people with paid early "beta" access. That wasnt actual beta access the game is actually done.
GZW is a perfect example of this. Tarkov shit the bed all over its player base and people jumped ship from a game thats been in development for close to a decade and has had multiple expansions and years of optimization and live play test data. To a game that was trying to take advantage of the market situation but was a very unpolished bare bone game and capital G Gamers *lost their fucking minds* that it wasnt perfectly replicated tarkov in vietnam 100% ready to go.
Studios are starting to figure out that the market does not respond well to actual beta playtests. The market wants what Call of Duty does where the game is fully polished and ready to go and just calls it a beta.
Beta tests nowadays are not 'beta tests' anymore.
They're a chance to show off your game and get more buzz going. They already have pretty much everything they need.
This SCREAMS "The game is going to be absolute garbage at launch".
I have a question for everyone:
If this game does release in a good state with minimal issues, what will you response be?
If this game does release in a bad state with many issues, what will your response be?
I am barely playing the first one (and having a blast) so I will patiently wait until it's all patched and the "game of the year" edition comes out with all the DLC.
While there is indeed a chance they're blindly throwing an unoptimized mess out at launch, is there not also a chance that it's simply in a very good state already with minimal bugs?
Perhaps it's all copium but I'm holding out hope
The basis of this game is WWZ which is genuinely a good foundation to build on for it. On the balance of that alone I'm inclined to believe it is just polishing etc that it needs.
Games don't recover when they have a bad launch.
They should delay the game 6 months, polish and fix the bugs or the community is gonna shit on it like all the other releases that come out that buggy non optomized releases.
Haven't they already delayed it by around that long? It probably doesn't really make sense from a money standpoint to delay again for another couple months
That’s exactly what they did. And they just decided to not split their team and try to put out a beta during that 6 month polish and touch up phase. Original release target was Feb 24
If they delay the game again it's going to have a lot of people lose interest plus look bad in general since it's already been delayed twice and now this, I bet they are running out of funding too.
I got a chance to play this at Gamescom a few weeks ago.
Even on their high end systems they had setup to demo the game it chugged a few times. Not the best…
Overall impressions were that it’s fun, but enemies are bullet spongey and I didn’t overly feel like a badass space marine but more of a big dude with normal guns.
The executions are frequent and awesome though.
Overall, I’m not really sure I’ll play this much over Darktide or Helldivers 2.
Yeah this doesn't seem right? Even if it isn't optimised for the beta, they could get A LOT of useful information as to the issues causing it and just brush it off as its still in beta
This is a nothing burger. This was never a real beta and was always a piece of hype marketing. I'd rather a smaller dev team not waste resources on building our a vertical slice when they could be polishing for the couple of months they have until release.
The game could still release poorly, but I really don't think this announcement is any kind of real indicator. The lack of public system specs this late though, is a bit more of an actual red flag.
That being said, I haven't heard anyone talk about performance issues from the most recent private hands on, but you never know. Just don't preorder the shiny cosmetics aren't worth the regret.
Why even bother speculating? Just wait until the game is released to find out if it’s good or not. Ppl acting like they have nothing else to play in the mean time is amusing.
Sure, take the time to polish it and make it good. They already pushed it back a year about a month before release last year, so it clearly needed more work.
If they're taking their time and putting in the work then I'm fine waiting for it. We'll see how it looks when it's ready.
I'm ok with this as long as they have their shit together at launch.
Deathwing was unplayable onlaunch, and the first Space Marine game did not have multiplayer on launch despite having a fairly polished singleplayer
Let me translate it: "underpaid developers crunch 70-80 hours a week due to incompetent management so said management can get a nice bonus for keeping the deadlines that were unrealistic in the first place."
I hate how they are giving out a limited skin for people on a Steam announcement so plenty of people have missed out on it.
Also not hosting a public beta when the game has been pushed back by a full year saying they need the time is kinda garbage reasoning.
Just look into the devs' history. It's broken mess after broken mess, save one semi-broken mess. FFS, they were given Gloomhaven by the previous devs - a game that was in a completely stable, playable state - and they immediately broke it nearly a year ago. It's still not fixed.
Fuck Saber Interactive.
Whelp, this is gonna be a rough launch. Suggest you cancel your pre-orders asap y'all.
Will hopefully be a cool game eventually but I'd skip the first month.
This is either a very good choice by the devs, or a very bad sign of horrific things to come.
People don't realize the *ludicrous* amount of effort, time and people that goes into a open beta test. You have to take loads of valuable employees off of the latest, newest Release Candidate build, and instead work on an older version slice of the game that will be used for the test. You have to spend loads of time and money fixing up this old version that will only be used for this beta and that's it. Open beta builds aren't ever the final build, they are a few versions behind normally.
This means valuable resources and employees spent working on, designing, and patching an old and irrelevant version of the game, all for a single open beta test, instead of having those same employees all working on the final RC build and getting it up to snuff and patched and performative and looking it's best. So it could be a good sign they canceled the beta.
Alternatively, this could also be a very bad sign of things to come, and could signal thet the game is in a horrifically bad state and they are trying to get it to barely playable before releasing a 'Gollum' level stinker of a game on the community. I truly hope it's option #1
I really hope that is the case as well, it seems about 60% of comments I've ready so far (read quite a lot) have been that they are thinking its option #2 that it's going to release in a very bad state. To me IDK what to think.. No one really knows until release, so in the meantime I think it's best just to be hopeful and supportive! It's been delayed already for like a year, that has to mean something, right?
Game studios can't win man, when people get shitty betas they'll complain about it and say the game should have been optimized or should have had more production time or whatever and then this happens and people still complain.
I for one am glad to see a company actually trying to make sure their product is decent before pushing onto the players.
Maybe we need some Salamanders to get rid of the bug fest. Get you flamethrowers and melters jacked.
I hope it's just bad public relations. Maybe they never planned to launch a beta.
Hmmmmm…..that’s very fishy.
Looks like we can assume it's gonna run like absolute ass at launch.
Or just be unlaunchable.
But that never stops em these days does it.
That's why we don't buy it till it's been out six months and had the bugs ironed out.
And, above all, > We do not preorder
Haven't pre ordered a game in over a decade.
Last time I pre-ordered a game it was because I got a free game for pre-ordering. This was when Tales of Zestiria was coming out for PC and they gave Tales of Symphonia to those who pre-ordered. Totally worth it.
It's funny because I remember pre-ordering the first game because I wanted the power sword.
The Gamer‘s Code: There is no impulse, there is Judgment. Through judgment, I avoid Regret. Through prudence, I embrace Quality. Through quality, I experience Joy.
That’s why i just wait for it to show up in humble choice
[удалено]
Hopefully the single player isn't server based
It's insane that this is even a possibility these days.
In the modern era of game design? The single player probably requires and always on all the time connection along with a store account and credit card on file.
Has there been a release in recent memory that hasn't? It's getting old.
I mean, considering how they were championing their horde tech. Im pretty sure it probably has something to do with that. Im sure the game runs fine and dandy, the main problem is it'll run like absolute dogshit on lower end machines, and thats probably where this Cancellation comes from. Its almost like an escape from tarkov problem. Half the game can be run on a shitty computer, but the other half will run at 3fps unless you have a good computer. They probably want to avoid this, if i had to imagine
Or it could be like City Skylines 2, and run like dogshit on literally every system. That particular example has been somewhat fixed.
>the main problem is it'll run like absolute dogshit on lower end machines *Xbox series S has entered the chat.* Bet anyone $5 that this is the problem
Most AAA games seem to have garbage performance at start and sometimes even after.
Maybe it just means that the competitive multiplayer is complete ass, which probably wouldn't surprise anyone.
I'd be surprised. They delayed the game specifically because of optimisation issues. The gameplay was, apparently, very good.
Almost smells like a fat shark...
This screams "leave me in the oven longer, I'm not cooked"
Yeah, definitely feeling a sense of ruh-roh around this game. Something about it just isn't gelling like they want it to. SM1 was a solid 6/10 for me, and SM2 wasn't looking much better from the previews I've seen.
Tbf, the "ruh-roh" factor stems from the fact it's a wh40k game. There is ALWAYS shit under the carpet with wh40k games, always. Not sure why but yeah
Dawn of War?
The Total War Warhammer games are amazing, and the first Space Marine game was a big surprise at how good it was Edit: reading comprehension fail, your point is correct 😂
I actually really enjoyed Warhammer 40k:Mechanicus as well. I dint even usually like xcom rts type games but I probably put 40 hours into that game without playing anything else.
Rogue Trader was pretty great too
Buggy as all hell though.
I've learned to wait with all owl cat games for them to release a few months of patches before playing. The added benefit is buying the games at a discount. I paid through it a month ago with no major issues and it was pretty awesome for what it's worth.
I only had 1 major quest break. I used a mod to skip the broken step. But I did have a lot of minor shit go wrong.
What do you mean? Can’t rate a game that isn’t out.
Just wouldn't be a 40K title without expecting some sort of bs.
Not really. Releasing an open beta is A LOT of work. Saber is not a huge team and if they decided to spend more time on optimization instead of a marketing gimmick - they will probably be better off this way.
I mean, it is, we should be a little cautious...but also I think it's sort of a better move than a fake beta test where no feedback is going to matter because they already have bigger fish to fry before launch.
Significant delay incoming.
Do not pre order this.
Do not pre-order *any game*.
Yes, NEVER PREORDER!
Yes, THE DAYS OF PREORDER ARE OVER!
THE TIME OF OF THE REVIEWS HAS COME!
House Biscuit does NOT pre-order!
If I find a prelaunch deal on a Fromsoft game I'm preordering because the last 6 games they've made I've either really liked them or they are on my all-time great list. Outside of that I agree.
Except Metroid Prime 4, in 2017.
As a big 40k fan that loves the first game I’m super excited for this. The latest trailers really built on that hype too! Still not preordering.
This is when it's the most dangerous. I'm the same as you- Loved the original, all the trailers looked good and got me hyped. But I am absolutely not preordering for that exact reason. They understand how to market to me, but did they follow through on making the game what I want it to be? That's an entirely different question. They won't be getting my money until I can be sure of it. It's a completely different studio, and hell, it's been over ten years since that first game. My tastes have changed, I have changed. Back then it was like, "wow, this game is a super faithful recreation of that hobby I had as a kid!", it was a pleasant surprise. Whereas now, not only do I have expectations to meet, it also comes with a lot of baggage about the Warhammer franchise as a whole, that has become much more well known over this past decade.
I like to post order games by about 1 to 2 years.
Honestly, that is pretty much what I do these days too.
A gamer does not buy a game late, nor does he pre-order it early. He buys it precisely when he means to.
Totally not the same but: unless you're a big 40k fan and collectible statue collector. Personally I think my pre-order was worth it just for the statue: there isn't many 40k statues surprisingly. They've got 2 Titus ones: the $300 one that comes with collectors edition, or the $1300 way cooler and bigger one. The $1300 is too much for me in all regards so the $300, isn't too bad for a statue of the size and quality in the collectors edition. I'm really excited just for the statue lol I've been a 40k fan for most of my life and Titus fan for a lot of it. I'm very skeptical of the game but at least the statue they have looks legit.
Do not pre order and wait for the metacritic user reviews!
I bought CE for Titus figure. This man deserve this and we'll, I guess single player will be OK but it looks like coop and pvp was added after they saw that he'll divers made shit load of money.
For the last 3 years, this has consistently meant the game is trash.
3 ?
Add a zero to that figure.
elden ring done it got delayed several times. though i see where you’re coming from
This is a canceling of beta test but it's still coming out. Not a delay. They just don't want people to see what a heap it is because they don't plan to have resources to make changes based on the beta feedback.
Elden Ring's biggest delay was over a security issue though, not gameplay. Someone found a pretty serious exploit in Dark Souls 3 online and FromSoftware realised they'd probably copied the exploit over since they reused a lot of code.
STALKER 2 release date was pushed back almost a year specifically for some negative gameplay feedback when they were demoing the game in booths at various game expos Personally that sounds like its a good delay and its purely gameplay related. Still to see if STALKER 2 is going to flop or not.
I thought Stalker 2 got delayed because of the Russian invasion in Ukraine.
As another user said. It's not the delay that's the issue it's the going dark in the name of "polish."
the whole ds3 shit was after release no? i remember redoing a run of ds3 offline bc of it
There were always a lot of cheaters online. That wasn't the exploit, the exploit allowed for remote code execution on the victim's computer. This was publicized sometime in Jan 2022, very close to ER's release date.
No although I think there was an Elden Ring beta or something before it happened. The DS3 thing happened in like late 2021.
Elden Ring got a official delay one time and with one month.
I am devastated man
I dont like this. My cautious optimism is turning into cynical curiosity. Best case scenario they know the game runs great (but without a beta how could they REALLY know?) Worst case they got a lot of pre orders and they don't want people playing a demo to their turd sandwich.
Most modern betas are really just sales and marketing and very little actual beta testing The closest a modern beta gets to useful testing is scale/netcode for the multiplayer, which mind you quite a few games have problems with on launch But honestly a beta to tune game play or features needs more than 2-3 months to be useful anyways. You need people playing, time to collect feedback, dev time to figure options then implement them, then roll them out and actually see if they made it better.
If you have an online game it is a real time server test - which is hard to emulate
Yeah but most often, they are done way to close to launch, so they dont have time to fix things. So its basically just a "temper expectation" thing.
Mass testing is always good No matter how good of an internal testing team your company had - it can never test every single combination under the sun that bits and pieces of your game interact with multitude of entertwining variables. There will be miscalculation, there will be honest underestimation, there is unexpected deadlock or broken logic And this is what is going to be hopefully found during beta test - people would be more forgiving if they found this in beta instead of on full release
Believe me when i tell you mass testing is largely irrelevant, and this comes from a QA guy. While its true, most games are tested internally pretty well, often times developers subcontract out QA testing and they already have most combinations of stupid shit and happenings under the sun already tested. Of course, this doesn't mean its all fool proof. But still. More testing is nice, but its not necessary in most cases. This is also not true with all games, but depending on the launch polish levels, its very evident which ones did this, and which ones didn't. And if i didn't have to adhere to the boogeyman, i could straight up tell you which ones did and did not. What happened in this case is they most likely realized their swarm tech is r wording lower end computers or is consuming way more resources then they expected/ugly memory leak popped up. and likely are going back to the drawing board last second to reoptimize the game for lower end machines. I have no doubt on higher end machines that the game as it currently exists runs fine. But most games have to design in mind for the 1000 series animals like me that still haven't gotten mogged by nvidia's attempts to murder their gpu via driver updates.
I've worked in the field too though not as a QA but alongside them. My observation is - internal testin is inadaquate because it is heavily pressured by the weather forecast of the mood swing of the higher up (from as low as lead to as high as product owner) They will end up with a list of known issue, known tricky thing that might be an issue in certain condition, certain concern that will be usually discared by others And this list will usually be glossed over, ignored or skip many of it if the higher up were to pressure them Example of such pressure 1. We have been dialling the product back multiple time they told us we can no longer do that 2. Boss need this product ahead of his yada yada agenda 3. No big problem you are just overreacting 4. We might be seen on negative light if we didnt meet their expectation (some lead unfortunately didnt fight for the team but instead just follow the whims of the MBA higher up who know jack shit about technical challenges or concerns) And even if there are huge thing bugging the game - QA absolutely are in no power to gatekeep the release of the game. They too had to keep up with the demand of the higher up. +++++++++ Public test is desirable to me in my opinion because their view is unfiltered - they really had nothing helding them back for withhelding opinion because of political drama, retaliation, negative feedback, burning bridge or etc. The masses have multitude of unique combination of hardware, software and progression/interaction in game - this is simply incomparable to any internal or external QA out there. Even if the system or app is tested on the same version of browser, operating system (mobile or desktop) - it would go sideways for some customer because they apparently have some other thing within their environment that adversely affecting the system (2 similar phone experiencing polar opposite performance for the same game for an example) Not demeaning any QA out there at all. Its just, there had been variety of game came out broken or barely operable at launch - what went wrong? (Rhetoric, we could probably guess) +++++ At the end of the day, if the game had issue, wouldnt it be better for us to finding out about it in beta Rather than leaving it up to them to decide whether to green light and release regardless
>At the end of the day, if the game had issue, wouldnt it be better for us to finding out about it in beta >Rather than leaving it up to them to decide whether to green light and release regardless Not really. Its impossible to meaningfully fix these issues alongside a public beta because generally speaking major fixes do not happen overnight. If the public beta is scrapped, its a bad look, but it also puts a tremendous amount of pressure off the developers themselves, and frees up a lot of internal resources in order to actually *try* to fix the problem. So think 70% of the solution is found/implemented instead of 15% In this case, the problem is probably the swarm tech destroying lower end computers. So now they have a lot more resources available to try and optimize it so it doesn't completely anihilate lower end pcs >Public test is desirable to me in my opinion because their view is unfiltered - they really had nothing helding them back for withhelding opinion because of political drama, retaliation, negative feedback, burning bridge or etc. Private large scale QA tests are more or less the same thing. These aren't handed out to random people, they are often times selected because of their reported hardware. So while they don't have a massive sample size of tens of thousands, a sample size of say 100 or 300 is sufficient as a starting point for fixing issues/optimizing. >My observation is - internal testin is inadaquate because it is heavily pressured by the weather forecast of the mood swing of the higher up (from as low as lead to as high as product owner) Internal testing is inadequate, however again. Many companies subcontract out their QA testing. So instead of a big fancy public beta test, you get a smaller sample size. But still a large amount of lower paid testers to basically do it for you. But in a more directed manner. Unless you are intentionally hunting for the bug that exists between the bonds of atoms, a sample size of 100 QA testers is effectively the same as several thousand. The only difference being you go through a big process to get your test approved and ready to ship for consoles/pc. But this takes away from your teams ability to actually solve any major issues or optimize for a while because they basically have to have their 2 eyes on the test to make sure the Advertisement doesn't go sideways.
While I fully agree that cancelling the beta sends up a red flag, and makes me think they know they have a stinker on their hands and don't want people to call them on it early like they did with that "AAAA" pirate game that I can't remember the name of... It doesn't actually matter. Because I cannot remember the last time a company did a beta test, or anything like that, and actually listened to the fucking feedback they got. Every single time there's a beta, or test branch for an already released game, they put out the content, there's issues, and the testers go "we told them about this exact issue like 400 times during testing." They could have this closed beta, and the only feedback could be "hey, y'all forgot to flip the switch from 'broke' to 'fixed.'" And they would still release the motherfucker without flipping the switch.
That's a lot of assumptions, though. If you have a beta period with any significant amount of participants, you will be receiving an absolute shitload of tickets or feedback items. And nearly always far too many to process and execute within the development time you have. Priorities must be set. It's extremely frustrating as a player, but I don't see any world where a developer has an active interest in receiving critical feedback and not implementing it. The only reasons that could cause this are either lack of time, lack of expertise, or something going wrong with procedure (i.e. ticket not escalated properly, ticket closed accidentally, etc).
People that play a beta and expect all bugs to be fixed a couple weeks later are kind of crazy. At the same time developers who release betas so soon before release aren't entirely honest with their approach, IMO, unless clearly stating it's for stress testing. Otherwise it does just feel like a glorified demo. Cancelling this beta makes me cautious, but even as someone that adored SM1 and played it constantly on release (Until BF3 came out), I wasn't going to pre-order and still won't, as I want to see how things go for a bit - an attitude I try to take with most games nowadays.
(but without a beta how could they REALLY know?) Betas are not what inform this in 2024.
Did you know there’s entire companies who just do mass play tests? They advertise every year at GDC, GQF and others. Public beta *should* be marketing first and mass, mostly free feedback on balancing - with ideally your game being in a state where only some edge-case bugs are found by players. The fact they’re cancelling the public beta specifically to work on optimization and fixes means they hit a cutoff point internally and the game still wasn’t in an acceptable state. Cancelling the public beta hurts them a bit PR wise, but is far better than risking an Arkham Knight situation. I’d hope they do some mass stress tests for their multiplayer.
Since there is pre-order options where you can play the game 4 days early, all we have to do is let the people that bought those editions play, watch their gameplay and make a decision then and see if there really is any major issues, if it's good then purchase! If it's not then simply don't.
That’s scary, hopefully slanessh’s filthy hand won’t reach our lieutenant
Wouldn't Slaanesh's hand be beautifully manicured, perfumed and alluring in a way that would leave you eager to touch it?
Sounds like heresy to me, get em bois
They've run private playtests for a while now. Many people have been able to play it in said playtests, and at events, the common conclusion is that the game was good. It just needed to be more optimised, which is what the developers have chosen to spend this remaining time on before release. Keep in mind that the team on Space Marine 2 isn't as big as other big game developers and they don't have the resources to spare if they want to get the game out by September 5th. If they were to continue with the public beta, they would have to make a build, have it go through Xbox/PlayStation certification, set up servers, and make sure it actually works properly. Certification alone can take over a week, and even then, it can easily take much longer if any issues are found. All of this would involve multiple developers who would be put to better use, making sure the final product is working for release. These days, beta's are more of a publicity/advertisement. They're rarely used for actual player feedback. Considering the game is now 10 weeks away, having a public beta would be pointless. Anything that would come from the beta in terms of feedback wouldn't have any effect on the final product until after it releases.
Public Betas are server stress tests at most.
They're also good at detecting weird hardware/software conflicts. It's pretty much impossible to make a game run the same way it does on every machine. Without a public beta of some kind.
Naw this is untrue, so many, SO MANY, games get released and run with very little to no issues without a beta. Betas, especially ones that happen so close to release, like this, are just demos and marketing fodder as they would have 0 time to actually capture, synthesize data and make any type of significant change.
And I don't think they actually need a server stress test for a game with small-scale MP and co-op.
A logical thought that doesn't use fear mongering to get upvotes. Good on you, man, that's the right take.
bruh I learned from helldivers2, no matter how good the game it is, buy it when it's S T A B L E.
Yeah certification could easily take 2-3 weeks to do, which considering how close they are to release is probably a bit unrealistic
Why are people pushing this “it’s shit” narrative? *They know there’s problems, that’s why they canceled this so they can try to fix them all*. Sounds like their QA and play test groups found far too many things that need work to even get value out of a public beta. A public beta is good marketing first - and second is a way to get a large number of eyes on the product before release.
I've been doing software QA for about 10 years and while this isn't good news to me, it does suggest that leadership is willing to make the right decisions about big scary problems instead of getting on conference calls and lying to everyone that everything is fine. It reads like someone finished reading the current ticket backlog and realized how much of QA's findings are still left outstanding in their current internal test build. Someone then had to make the difficult call not to send this out to the public, probably because there's a whole lot of already identified showstopper issues. The point of an OPEN beta is not just to find more bugs, it's also to gather the kind of invaluable gameplay data and edge case testing that only throwing a hundreds or thousands of frothing players at your game can provide. If the public gets their hands on the Space Marine 2 open beta and they can't even play for more than 10 minutes at a stretch without crashing then there's very little value being generated, but lots of playerbase good will going down the drain. TL:DR, this is not good, but it is what a responsible development studio should probably do if faced with a difficult JIRA backlog and a looming deadline.
If the game comes out with minimal issues then I will have gained a lot of respect for this studio taking on this franchise.
I think the fear is that this decision is very rarely made the proper way. So how bad was it to get it to trigger? Is it a good management team pulling the stop because the game is in a bad place or is it a who cares what management team because it’s so bad even they couldn’t justify it.
Everyone here going “uh oh, that’s bad!”, but isn’t this exactly what we want? Like, if they had put out the public beta in a shit state, wouldn’t yall be whining about why didn’t they just push back the beta?
It would be one thing if they also delayed the launch, but they haven't (yet). Just canceling the beta for "polish" but not delaying tells me they're just trying to avoid bad publicity before launch.
All a beta does is test servers and network stability, they have their own internal and external QA testers to find bugs and shit. If they are confident in their servers (which is possible) cancelling a beta to focus on optimisation/bugs/none server related issues is honestly pretty run of the mill and normal.
I wonder if it's because of shipping? See they have statues with the collectors edition, so I wonder if they'd have to cancel a freight or something and can't rebook a new one in time so they're stuck with the date? Yes I am thinking best case scenario.
But it's not a delay of the Open Beta, it's a flat out cancellation of it, with no change to the full release date.
I find it weird how people give so much significance to a fucking beta. It's just a marketing event that takes up quite a lot of ressources. Cancelling the thing and using the ressources to ensure a better experience at launch is a bad thing in which universe exactly?
It all comes down to intent. The worst case interpretation is that cancelling the Open Beta is pre-emptive damage control, because it will make it clear the game is in a bad state. If the Open Beta & Full Release were both just delayed, I think the intent would be much clearer, or at least less likely to be interpreted in a negative light.
It's what I thought for Cyberpunk2077... "Yeah, it's just polish" "Critics say it's good" "pushing the release later isn't a bad sign, it's CDPR, they don't want a witcher3 controversy again" etc It was a fucking disaster at launch.
Exactly. Cancelling the beta frees up time and resources to fix things because they can focus entirely on development work. They obviously know it's not ready for the public so this feels like an appropriate measure. If it's still not ready, they can delay it later.
Yeah worse case if its so bad and they can't fix the issues they will delay it again. The amount of money they can potentially get for this game will be crazy, they don't want to lose out on that.
In addition to the "but they just cancelled the beta, not delayed it" this cancellation comes after already delaying the launch of the game from February 2024. So the game wasn't coming together, they delayed, then even after the delay decided to cancel the public beta? That's... Not good.
Gamers are the worst audience of all time. They will whine about *literally anything* Too much communication? Whine Too little communication? Whine Exactly the right amount of communication? Still whining!
Just remember folks, it will go on sale eventually.
/r/patientgamers calling! I legit cannot way to try this especially after seeing the most recent videos. I read let get excited about games this way. But there’s so many games I haven’t played. Why rush.
You just reminded me I should try Half Life 2
If it is good I am playing it ASAP. But I am biased, I love 40K and want bigger/better games in this setting because it is one of the coolest universes in any game/movie/book/or show in my opinion. If the game is great I feel they deserve full price for it. But won't be surprised if it is a mess.
LOVE THIS. TAKE YOUR TIME OR YOUR GAME WILL SUCK.
There was never any officially announced beta, just a general beta sign up for any focus interactive game. And they are giving players a skin in the game for just signing up for that as a “we’re sorry it’s not the direction we took but here’s something to say thanks for the excitement” There have been closed test and public builds for conventions. It’s not like they are doing some shady shit to hide things from players, most if not all resulting feedback is the game just needed some optimization clean up. Gamers not blow things out of proportion challenge: Impossible difficulty
I didn't even catch that but you're right.
I don’t understand why people are upset. What do you want anymore? If they release a shitty beta, I’m sure there’d be just as many people complaining about it, as if they’d cancelled the beta to continue working on it instead. Going one way or the other over this is nonsense. Just sit back and wait for the game to release.
So to play Devil's advocate for a moment: The game has already been delayed, more than once. It is quite possible that corporate isn't willing to invest any more time and money, regardless of the games state. A public beta would have announced that the game might not be fit for public release, before the release date. Cancelling the beta, without pushing back the release date, could be a sign that things are going very poorly. Or it could all just be a nothing burger. But it is probably best to cancel your pre-order, if you have one.
Playing the counter devils advocate. How many games in recent years had actual beta play testing and idiotic gamers get fucking bent out of shape that it doesnt run like a fully released AAA game and go full meltdown mode? Causing a PR nightmare and making investors freak out pull funding and effecting the quality of the final product. I wont say gamers are totally at fault here. The gaming industry has beyond bastardized what a beta or early access actually is. Boomer moment but back in the day a beta test was universally a rough shitty laggy buggy experience and everyone knew it. We played it to help make the final product better and to get to play a rough outline of the game early. Everyone knew what it was. Then AAA's figured out they could get 20$ more out of people with paid early "beta" access. That wasnt actual beta access the game is actually done. GZW is a perfect example of this. Tarkov shit the bed all over its player base and people jumped ship from a game thats been in development for close to a decade and has had multiple expansions and years of optimization and live play test data. To a game that was trying to take advantage of the market situation but was a very unpolished bare bone game and capital G Gamers *lost their fucking minds* that it wasnt perfectly replicated tarkov in vietnam 100% ready to go. Studios are starting to figure out that the market does not respond well to actual beta playtests. The market wants what Call of Duty does where the game is fully polished and ready to go and just calls it a beta.
Next step is to tell reviewers to wait till the day of launch to talk about it lol, then introduce micro transactions a month after day 1 release
Why stop there? Pull a Cyberpunk 2077 and give reviewers approved gameplay to show so you can get sales even thought the game is broken.
What game just came out and strait up told reviewers not to post negative comments?? I swear that was in the news not too long ago
Not sure on reviewers but I know streamers were told to say only positive things about Marvel Rivals. That's the most recent one I can remember.
Don't preorder.
Beta tests nowadays are not 'beta tests' anymore. They're a chance to show off your game and get more buzz going. They already have pretty much everything they need. This SCREAMS "The game is going to be absolute garbage at launch".
I have a question for everyone: If this game does release in a good state with minimal issues, what will you response be? If this game does release in a bad state with many issues, what will your response be?
I am barely playing the first one (and having a blast) so I will patiently wait until it's all patched and the "game of the year" edition comes out with all the DLC.
While there is indeed a chance they're blindly throwing an unoptimized mess out at launch, is there not also a chance that it's simply in a very good state already with minimal bugs? Perhaps it's all copium but I'm holding out hope
Delay 👏 your 👏 game 👏 until 👏 it's 👏 ready.
Why is there so much negativity here? Devs are Warhammer fans, i just cant believe they would let this flop. Plus, beta never was fully confirmed.
The basis of this game is WWZ which is genuinely a good foundation to build on for it. On the balance of that alone I'm inclined to believe it is just polishing etc that it needs. Games don't recover when they have a bad launch.
ruh roh
That probably makes sense but for a different reason. The game is probably in a really bad state.
That is what betas used to be for prior to companies selling access to unfinished games for profit.
They should delay the game 6 months, polish and fix the bugs or the community is gonna shit on it like all the other releases that come out that buggy non optomized releases.
Haven't they already delayed it by around that long? It probably doesn't really make sense from a money standpoint to delay again for another couple months
That’s exactly what they did. And they just decided to not split their team and try to put out a beta during that 6 month polish and touch up phase. Original release target was Feb 24
If they delay the game again it's going to have a lot of people lose interest plus look bad in general since it's already been delayed twice and now this, I bet they are running out of funding too.
For the Emperor!… as soon as he’s ready.
I got a chance to play this at Gamescom a few weeks ago. Even on their high end systems they had setup to demo the game it chugged a few times. Not the best… Overall impressions were that it’s fun, but enemies are bullet spongey and I didn’t overly feel like a badass space marine but more of a big dude with normal guns. The executions are frequent and awesome though. Overall, I’m not really sure I’ll play this much over Darktide or Helldivers 2.
Time for a delay.
The fact the requirements haven't released yet is a huge red flag for me. This game is gonna run like shit.
Time for the Inquisition to drop by and sort things out.
Oh no :( I loved the first, well... except for the shitty ending. This has gone from a day 1 buy to a wait and see now...
Isn’t that exactly what public betas are for, to figure out what you need to optimize and polish?
Yeah this doesn't seem right? Even if it isn't optimised for the beta, they could get A LOT of useful information as to the issues causing it and just brush it off as its still in beta
Damn they're outright saying that its gonna run like shit?
Maybe, or maybe it's we don't want to waste time and resources on a beta when it doesn't need one and needs some more fixing done before release.
Isn't that what open beta is for ? To find issues, to stress test etc. so more things can be fixed before release?
What the hell Isn't this like cancelling your rehearsal dinner to make sure your wedding goes better?
That doesn’t sound good
Welp. This doesn’t bold well.
Yooo there will be polish language!!!
Well that is not good at all. This means the game runs like shit or something
This game is going to end up being a huge disappointment, huh? 😭
Sigh.
Ah man this doesn't bode well
This is a nothing burger. This was never a real beta and was always a piece of hype marketing. I'd rather a smaller dev team not waste resources on building our a vertical slice when they could be polishing for the couple of months they have until release. The game could still release poorly, but I really don't think this announcement is any kind of real indicator. The lack of public system specs this late though, is a bit more of an actual red flag. That being said, I haven't heard anyone talk about performance issues from the most recent private hands on, but you never know. Just don't preorder the shiny cosmetics aren't worth the regret.
Why even bother speculating? Just wait until the game is released to find out if it’s good or not. Ppl acting like they have nothing else to play in the mean time is amusing.
A beta that close to launch is a demo
Sure, take the time to polish it and make it good. They already pushed it back a year about a month before release last year, so it clearly needed more work. If they're taking their time and putting in the work then I'm fine waiting for it. We'll see how it looks when it's ready.
I'm ok with this as long as they have their shit together at launch. Deathwing was unplayable onlaunch, and the first Space Marine game did not have multiplayer on launch despite having a fairly polished singleplayer
So it wasn't ready to be seen by the public.
aint surprised given the track record of AAA slop lately. cant wait for another social media post from the publishers apologizing
This doesn't sound like someone who's confident in their product - I'm getting cautious about this game now
Let me translate it: "underpaid developers crunch 70-80 hours a week due to incompetent management so said management can get a nice bonus for keeping the deadlines that were unrealistic in the first place."
Sus af,
Just another Layer Nuln Oil
I'll wait to the gold edition then.
I hate how they are giving out a limited skin for people on a Steam announcement so plenty of people have missed out on it. Also not hosting a public beta when the game has been pushed back by a full year saying they need the time is kinda garbage reasoning.
UH OH
Just look into the devs' history. It's broken mess after broken mess, save one semi-broken mess. FFS, they were given Gloomhaven by the previous devs - a game that was in a completely stable, playable state - and they immediately broke it nearly a year ago. It's still not fixed. Fuck Saber Interactive.
there is a reason they hide their shitty mobile game ui in every trailer they released. screams mobile trash low quality shooter.
Whelp, this is gonna be a rough launch. Suggest you cancel your pre-orders asap y'all. Will hopefully be a cool game eventually but I'd skip the first month.
This is either a very good choice by the devs, or a very bad sign of horrific things to come. People don't realize the *ludicrous* amount of effort, time and people that goes into a open beta test. You have to take loads of valuable employees off of the latest, newest Release Candidate build, and instead work on an older version slice of the game that will be used for the test. You have to spend loads of time and money fixing up this old version that will only be used for this beta and that's it. Open beta builds aren't ever the final build, they are a few versions behind normally. This means valuable resources and employees spent working on, designing, and patching an old and irrelevant version of the game, all for a single open beta test, instead of having those same employees all working on the final RC build and getting it up to snuff and patched and performative and looking it's best. So it could be a good sign they canceled the beta. Alternatively, this could also be a very bad sign of things to come, and could signal thet the game is in a horrifically bad state and they are trying to get it to barely playable before releasing a 'Gollum' level stinker of a game on the community. I truly hope it's option #1
I really hope that is the case as well, it seems about 60% of comments I've ready so far (read quite a lot) have been that they are thinking its option #2 that it's going to release in a very bad state. To me IDK what to think.. No one really knows until release, so in the meantime I think it's best just to be hopeful and supportive! It's been delayed already for like a year, that has to mean something, right?
They're just scared we'll see how broken it really is and cancel our pre-orders.
Send in the inquisitors
Makes sense, a working beta build takes a lot of time to create.
So...stating the obvious here...isn't beta testing specifically for finding those issues?
In other words, the feedback was horrible so they're going to make sure they get no feedback.
Good. Fix the game so when it’s fully released, it runs smooth and is actually good.
Game studios can't win man, when people get shitty betas they'll complain about it and say the game should have been optimized or should have had more production time or whatever and then this happens and people still complain. I for one am glad to see a company actually trying to make sure their product is decent before pushing onto the players.
I sense Heresy
Guaranteed it requires you to be online at all times
Remember.. No pre-order
Ist der Zustand des Spiels wirklich so mies?
I'll just say what the company won't. This game sucks
Y’all see how similar it is to their zombie game? I played world war z and this just seems like a pretty reskin. Now this? No thanks
Still buying this game day 1.
Maybe we need some Salamanders to get rid of the bug fest. Get you flamethrowers and melters jacked. I hope it's just bad public relations. Maybe they never planned to launch a beta.
IGN went hands on with this almost a year ago and gave it a solid preview, I think they said it was an hours gameplay from the second level.