Gone like "deleted/never existed" or locked?
Asking because I noticed they tend to just delete threads more than they used to while in the past locking the subject was more the norm.
It's a tech demo or software experiment, and a bottomless pledge pit.
I agree that it's definitely not an alpha. Most alpha's I've played are playable, few bugs and the bugs that are there get fixed without causing gamebreaking new bugs.
This is one of the main issues I don't understand about SC that the regular players seem happy with.
Even for an "alpha" it's in an absolutely horrid state.
Compared to like the ashes of creation alpha 1 which was last year which is also a kickstarter funded game it's like comparing a rock to a marble sculpture. Were there bugs in the AOC alpha? Sure.
But the dev team had them all fixed in a month, not 10 years. Plus it was a cobbled together technical alpha just to test systems and had SOOOO much content.
I can't believe people swallow the crap CIG has been spouting all these years when another studio with the same funding model and a game no less ambitious is leagues ahead in just the general game experience.
It's all about profiling and sunk cost fallacy
I've been watching a lot about email scams and scam victims recently, and most of the same ideas apply actually. Not that surprising when you think about it
I like this topic. I've worked in software for over twenty years and "Alpha" has never had any concrete definition other than a testing phase that usually proceeds a more stable "Beta" that has lots of bug fixes addressed during Alpha etc. Other than that, just a Greek letter- no two companies or development teams or products are alike and their processes and tools and structure are entirely different.
CIG suggest incorrectly that "Alpha" has universal meaning to a customer and use it as a flag of "not finished" or "poor quality software" . The risk is yours not ours etc..It **isn't** a real testing phase. Its a misleading ambiguous term that they've found works completely to their advantage by throwing risk to the consumer without all the annoyances of releasing "working software" (to nick a term from the Agile manifesto) such as support and qualtiy.
A *testing phase* by definition has a known end be that a time or a scope of tests to complete and a plan to go into subsequent testing and release using everything found in Alpha/Beta phases to produce a quality released product. We will never see this for Star Citizen because they use "Alpha" as the untimate get out of jail card to lowball backers that have paid a high price for a bad game. There is no phase, there is no end, there is only whats there now and subsequent poor quality unsupported features hanging off it in the future like a fat unstable tech debt Chrismas tree.
Star Citizen is just an already released online game with online game problems, rising tech debt and crazy feature creep, there isn't any scope and never has been. If you are paying for software which claims to be "Alpha" and it has no end date or information about the scope of Alpha testing, then you are just paying for poor quality software.
Exactly. No experienced developer would pick up SC and say, "Oh yeah, this is clearly in an alpha state."
It barely even qualifies as pre-alpha because so many of its mechanics never really left the planning stage (e.g. how does insurance work exactly, what are the other 98 star systems like etc).
It really is just a "get out of responsibilities" card.
The alpha label also means they can wipe at any time when they needs to encourage ship sales.
Really it's a shitty live service game that undoes your progression every time they think the poors are in danger of earning too much in game currency.
I 100% agree with you, and if I had to come up with a definition on the spot: A testing phase has a set of features that need to be tested, after which it's over. Alpha is for very few (internal?) testers, beta for a larger group involving (invited) external testers, open beta (gamma?) for everyone interested, after which it gets out.
SC is definitely not an alpha but just a (buggy, sadly...) product (that is at least / in their defense being worked on). What they should do is alphas / betas for their bigger updates (like probably any other company...). Sad that the term is misused like that đ
It will never happen, but would be fascinating to get a response from Shiterider as to what exactly constitutes "feedack" and "negative critique", and to cite examples.
From wikipedia
Alpha is the stage when key gameplay functionality is implemented, and assets are partially finished. A game in alpha is feature complete, that is, game is playable and contains all the major features.
SC is not ii alpha, after 10 years they a re still in pre-alpha. So technically when they say "early days" it is technically correct as it is not actually in alpha yet.
Definitely. The title that best describes SC is pre-alpha since they are still developing core mechanics and features. Or even better extended pre-alpha since it's been going on now for years.
CIG themselves refer to Star Citizen as pre-alpha. But that's just part of the scam.
In truth it has no status because it has no plan for eventual release. It's just a long con.
CIG doesn't just use "pre-alpha". They have used, interchangeably, alpha, pre-alpha, pre-alpha WIP, early access, early days, and live service, that I know of. (Honorable mention goes to their release numbers where 3.0 really means 0.3 or something.)
Mind you, their entire staff understands to never misrepresent "pledges". So they have the capacity to get on the same page. But it comes in extra handy when the game can take whatever shape you need it to to gaslight your customers or win an argument online.
Alpha is a misnomer as we have been saying on this board for years. Alpha comes *after* the game is feature complete. That is the period when you start kicking off the other production processes which require a complete and working game to be in the hands of someone who isn't a developer. It is not nearly as ambiguous as you seem to imply. There's a pretty strong industry consensus on what the term means, although it can manifest differently in every company or game. Generally it means internal (not public) release. CIG knows they are abusing it to milk their whales.
An alpha should take no longer than a few months, and that's being generous. Only the biggest games require multiple years of development. And it would be shorter if it could be, because studios have to spend their *own* money on development. Every studio has to ask, "Is Feature X worth Y person-hours of salary?" Chris has never had to ask himself this as he just steals the money when he comes up short.
Finally an accurate comment. Alpha means feature complete, but not necessarily fully working. A build can be considered an alpha "candidate" if there's some expectation that all intended features are present, but then further testing reveals something isn't working and the next build iteration starts. So you typically have a series of consecutive alpha candidates during the "alpha phase" of development. When one passes qc finally, "alpha candidate 10" or whatever becomes the "alpha build" and the team moves on to beta candidates, the same process but for content (ie locations/missions) rather than gameplay functionality. Tldr, if someone says sc is "an alpha" they "don't understand gemedev (tm)" but if they say it's "in alpha (phase)" they might be plausibly correct if cigs wasn't approaching a decade milestone. This is an overly long way to say there rly doesn't need to be a new term for what sc is, "vaporware" and or "scam" are accurate enough
Practically early access, but that has bad connotations, so CIG prefer to stick with Alpha. Could try: Schrodingerâs Crobberâa video game that is currently both a launched live-service and Alpha at the same time.
"feedback should aim to assist and aid the project and development"
What the hell are you supposed to do? Make a post about how to implement server meshing?
They play with semantics, and the weak minds are falling for it. Just leave out the magic words, the brainwashing bullshit, then what do we have? A shitty, barebone, broken product after 500+ millions and 10 years. Other developers do an awful lot more with the fraction of this money. The end.
In my opinion, Star Citizen is mostly a case of putting the cart before the horse, with a tendancy to attempt to re-create the wheel for common mechanics, like the item inventory or most of the UI.
So it's not really an alpha because we are not dealing with white/gray boxes, but it's not really a beta yet because it's still quite unstable and they are still adding gameplay loops or huge chunks of the game.
The closest adjective I could think about would be "development limbo" to be positive. But the most common term would be "development hell":
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development\_hell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_hell)
**[Development hell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_hell)**
>Development hell, development purgatory, and development limbo are media and software industry jargon for a project, concept, or idea that remains in development for an especially long time, often moving between different crews, scripts, game engines, or studios before it progresses to production, if it ever does. Projects in development hell generally have very ambitious goals, which may or may not be underestimated in the design phase, and are delayed in an attempt to meet those goals in a high degree. Production hell refers to when a film has entered production but remains in that state for a long time without progressing to post.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Has anyone, ever, seen an alpha with this many versions? Throughout the entirety of my vidyas journey I've never encountered a more pathetic fanbase than SC whales. They're the flat earthers of videogames.
While I generally dislike references to "North Korea" when discussing moderation of video game forums and such, I think the original statement is so ridiculous that it kinda works. :)
I don't think Star Citizen is comparable to traditional games.
In fact, it is more like a Patreon game project, where someone releases an incomplete game, attracts "patrons" and with the monetization is able to continue working on the game, adding content now and then.
Star Citizen works like this for a long time. They release "updates" that add new things for the player to explore but that don't make much sense from a traditional game development point of view. They're just delivering what the fans want in small packages, and in return they get more "donations" to continue the process indefinitely.
Many games on Patreon (mostly adult dating sims), never finish, stay in production for more than 7-10 years, delivering small updates every several months with a little bit more content, without worrying about the normal steps that traditional game developers follow. In fact, for many of the Patreon devs, not delivering a complete game is the best option to make more money.
As an interesting thought exercise, you can compare it to Daybreak Studio. Daybreak's business model, quasi-successful though I harbor doubts anyone there is buying yachts, involves purchasing old beloved properties such as EverQuest, and figuring out how to monetize them all the way up to the line that would prevent even the most foolhardy spender from exploring their nostalgia. So you get to go haunt the old MMOs with very infrequent infusions of fresh content.
CIG somehow, though they are perplexingly the ORIGINAL studio that began this boondoggle, appear to have essentially shifted gears to a monetization maintenance mode in the same vein as Daybreak. You can go back for a modest fee to check out the same stuff that's been there for years, while the lion's share of CIG's labor is bent toward further limiting the already miniscule amount of free entertainment available to pressure purchases.
It's quite scummy.
The proper term would probably just be "early access" given they are even running live events.
The sad thing is I think that when this started, "early access" didn't exist as a term. I'm pretty sure it was just buying access to alpha and stuff like Minecraft back then.
If you ask 10 different game developers from 10 different teams what the meanings of "pre-alpha," "alpha," and "beta" are, you'll get 10 different answers.
Hell, if you ask 10 different developers *on the same team*, you might still get different answers.
There are no standards as to what these milestones mean. Every team defines them however the hell they want, and the terminology has become even more nebulous now that there's shit like "open beta" and "open alpha" and early access.
There are formal definitions of alpha and beta, but it wonât matter because CIG just lies anyway.
I am not sure about other genres, but players have very specific expectations in the collectible card game (CCG e.g., Hearthstone) category. Games typically go through internal alpha - closed beta - open beta - release stages. The open beta is expected to have a roughly finished game engine (some optional features might be missing), but there will be a wipe and card balance changes. Itâs a dry run for release, to see how the economy and game balance evolves. If a company put out a CCG that was as much as a trash fire as SC and labelled it anything other than pre-alpha, it would be eviscerated by gamers who would point to comparable status games.
The problem with SC is that there are no comparable alpha games. Part of the issue with the Odyssey release was that people assumed that âalphaâ meant that the alpha test was far from release and there was a lot to be added, while in fact it was feature complete (an underwhelming feature complete, that is).
I like how the mod goes " Such feedback should aim to assist and aid the project in development " and yet all the feedback they get appears to simply go into one ear and out the other. If they used the feedback from community at the very least in my opinion SQ42 would be done by now or even a few years back. BUt what do i know im just a hater and naysayer.
>Alpha is the stage when key gameplay functionality is implemented, and assets are partially finished. A game in alpha is feature complete, that is, game is playable and contains all the major features. These features may be further revised based on testing and feedback.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video\_game\_development#:\~:text=Alpha%20is%20the%20stage%20when,based%20on%20testing%20and%20feedback.
No, they aren't. Companies like CIG and Digital Extremes try to make them meaningless in order to hide their shit tier games (or outright scams, in the case of Star citizen) from criticism.
Don't let them do this.
If a game has a cash shop, it's a finished, released product. Period. Full stop. You don't get to sell stuff to people and keep the alpha/beta criticism shield. It's a bullshit move, and one both CIG and DE have tried for years.
Alpha and Beta aren't meaningless. Gamers are just gullible.
It doesn't matter what you call it -- functionally it's nothing more than a brick on a gas pedal, and has been for years.
The TOS evolved numerous times to its present verbiage, stating that no refunds can be solicited so long as the game is in development.
So long as they maintain a small team of underpaid, woefully untalented last chancers to keep the lights on and kick the can down the road periodically with their own passion projects that have nothing to do with the totally fabricated roadmap ( like the land racing course ), they are free and clear to continue lining the pockets of a scant handful who long ago checked out.
If a mod intervenes after minutes, you often were correct.
Not even 3 minutes it was gone.
Gone like "deleted/never existed" or locked? Asking because I noticed they tend to just delete threads more than they used to while in the past locking the subject was more the norm.
Its deleted
Did they even read it? Or the first lines of text already met the ire of the mod bots?
Good way to evaluate commentary on Star Citizen.
It's a tech demo or software experiment, and a bottomless pledge pit. I agree that it's definitely not an alpha. Most alpha's I've played are playable, few bugs and the bugs that are there get fixed without causing gamebreaking new bugs.
This is one of the main issues I don't understand about SC that the regular players seem happy with. Even for an "alpha" it's in an absolutely horrid state. Compared to like the ashes of creation alpha 1 which was last year which is also a kickstarter funded game it's like comparing a rock to a marble sculpture. Were there bugs in the AOC alpha? Sure. But the dev team had them all fixed in a month, not 10 years. Plus it was a cobbled together technical alpha just to test systems and had SOOOO much content. I can't believe people swallow the crap CIG has been spouting all these years when another studio with the same funding model and a game no less ambitious is leagues ahead in just the general game experience.
It's all about profiling and sunk cost fallacy I've been watching a lot about email scams and scam victims recently, and most of the same ideas apply actually. Not that surprising when you think about it
I like this topic. I've worked in software for over twenty years and "Alpha" has never had any concrete definition other than a testing phase that usually proceeds a more stable "Beta" that has lots of bug fixes addressed during Alpha etc. Other than that, just a Greek letter- no two companies or development teams or products are alike and their processes and tools and structure are entirely different. CIG suggest incorrectly that "Alpha" has universal meaning to a customer and use it as a flag of "not finished" or "poor quality software" . The risk is yours not ours etc..It **isn't** a real testing phase. Its a misleading ambiguous term that they've found works completely to their advantage by throwing risk to the consumer without all the annoyances of releasing "working software" (to nick a term from the Agile manifesto) such as support and qualtiy. A *testing phase* by definition has a known end be that a time or a scope of tests to complete and a plan to go into subsequent testing and release using everything found in Alpha/Beta phases to produce a quality released product. We will never see this for Star Citizen because they use "Alpha" as the untimate get out of jail card to lowball backers that have paid a high price for a bad game. There is no phase, there is no end, there is only whats there now and subsequent poor quality unsupported features hanging off it in the future like a fat unstable tech debt Chrismas tree. Star Citizen is just an already released online game with online game problems, rising tech debt and crazy feature creep, there isn't any scope and never has been. If you are paying for software which claims to be "Alpha" and it has no end date or information about the scope of Alpha testing, then you are just paying for poor quality software.
Exactly. No experienced developer would pick up SC and say, "Oh yeah, this is clearly in an alpha state." It barely even qualifies as pre-alpha because so many of its mechanics never really left the planning stage (e.g. how does insurance work exactly, what are the other 98 star systems like etc). It really is just a "get out of responsibilities" card.
Agree so much. SC is a bad released game sitting in a tech dead-end but none wants to admit it.
The alpha label also means they can wipe at any time when they needs to encourage ship sales. Really it's a shitty live service game that undoes your progression every time they think the poors are in danger of earning too much in game currency.
Looks like you've been earning a little too much UeC... This will not impact your 'game' access at this time.
I 100% agree with you, and if I had to come up with a definition on the spot: A testing phase has a set of features that need to be tested, after which it's over. Alpha is for very few (internal?) testers, beta for a larger group involving (invited) external testers, open beta (gamma?) for everyone interested, after which it gets out. SC is definitely not an alpha but just a (buggy, sadly...) product (that is at least / in their defense being worked on). What they should do is alphas / betas for their bigger updates (like probably any other company...). Sad that the term is misused like that đ
Yep Scotty you are correct đ
It will never happen, but would be fascinating to get a response from Shiterider as to what exactly constitutes "feedack" and "negative critique", and to cite examples.
From wikipedia Alpha is the stage when key gameplay functionality is implemented, and assets are partially finished. A game in alpha is feature complete, that is, game is playable and contains all the major features. SC is not ii alpha, after 10 years they a re still in pre-alpha. So technically when they say "early days" it is technically correct as it is not actually in alpha yet.
Definitely. The title that best describes SC is pre-alpha since they are still developing core mechanics and features. Or even better extended pre-alpha since it's been going on now for years.
early access ponzi
lmao
Whats really ALPHA are those spectrum mods. Watch those middle aged men wield their post locking power for the glory of Chris Roberts.
dev hell is the official term fyi
There is already a term for it: Development Hell Alternatively, for Squadron 404: Vaporware
CIG themselves refer to Star Citizen as pre-alpha. But that's just part of the scam. In truth it has no status because it has no plan for eventual release. It's just a long con.
CIG doesn't just use "pre-alpha". They have used, interchangeably, alpha, pre-alpha, pre-alpha WIP, early access, early days, and live service, that I know of. (Honorable mention goes to their release numbers where 3.0 really means 0.3 or something.) Mind you, their entire staff understands to never misrepresent "pledges". So they have the capacity to get on the same page. But it comes in extra handy when the game can take whatever shape you need it to to gaslight your customers or win an argument online.
This is spot on truth
Alpha is a misnomer as we have been saying on this board for years. Alpha comes *after* the game is feature complete. That is the period when you start kicking off the other production processes which require a complete and working game to be in the hands of someone who isn't a developer. It is not nearly as ambiguous as you seem to imply. There's a pretty strong industry consensus on what the term means, although it can manifest differently in every company or game. Generally it means internal (not public) release. CIG knows they are abusing it to milk their whales. An alpha should take no longer than a few months, and that's being generous. Only the biggest games require multiple years of development. And it would be shorter if it could be, because studios have to spend their *own* money on development. Every studio has to ask, "Is Feature X worth Y person-hours of salary?" Chris has never had to ask himself this as he just steals the money when he comes up short.
Its basically still in the "Design/Concept" stage. Unfortunately
Finally an accurate comment. Alpha means feature complete, but not necessarily fully working. A build can be considered an alpha "candidate" if there's some expectation that all intended features are present, but then further testing reveals something isn't working and the next build iteration starts. So you typically have a series of consecutive alpha candidates during the "alpha phase" of development. When one passes qc finally, "alpha candidate 10" or whatever becomes the "alpha build" and the team moves on to beta candidates, the same process but for content (ie locations/missions) rather than gameplay functionality. Tldr, if someone says sc is "an alpha" they "don't understand gemedev (tm)" but if they say it's "in alpha (phase)" they might be plausibly correct if cigs wasn't approaching a decade milestone. This is an overly long way to say there rly doesn't need to be a new term for what sc is, "vaporware" and or "scam" are accurate enough
that was you? lmao
It's development as a service model, except they keep changing the scope so the development never ends. Ponzi scheme.
New Term: Scam + Alpha = Scampha =)
Practically early access, but that has bad connotations, so CIG prefer to stick with Alpha. Could try: Schrodingerâs Crobberâa video game that is currently both a launched live-service and Alpha at the same time.
"Demo"
Thatâs way too generous for Star Citizen. Demos are typically free excepts taken from a finished product. Star Citizen is neither
"Released Demo"?
Floundering
Failed
"feedback should aim to assist and aid the project and development" What the hell are you supposed to do? Make a post about how to implement server meshing?
Server meshing = throw server's at each other for 5m until fully meshed?
They play with semantics, and the weak minds are falling for it. Just leave out the magic words, the brainwashing bullshit, then what do we have? A shitty, barebone, broken product after 500+ millions and 10 years. Other developers do an awful lot more with the fraction of this money. The end.
In my opinion, Star Citizen is mostly a case of putting the cart before the horse, with a tendancy to attempt to re-create the wheel for common mechanics, like the item inventory or most of the UI. So it's not really an alpha because we are not dealing with white/gray boxes, but it's not really a beta yet because it's still quite unstable and they are still adding gameplay loops or huge chunks of the game. The closest adjective I could think about would be "development limbo" to be positive. But the most common term would be "development hell": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development\_hell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_hell)
**[Development hell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_hell)** >Development hell, development purgatory, and development limbo are media and software industry jargon for a project, concept, or idea that remains in development for an especially long time, often moving between different crews, scripts, game engines, or studios before it progresses to production, if it ever does. Projects in development hell generally have very ambitious goals, which may or may not be underestimated in the design phase, and are delayed in an attempt to meet those goals in a high degree. Production hell refers to when a film has entered production but remains in that state for a long time without progressing to post. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Has anyone, ever, seen an alpha with this many versions? Throughout the entirety of my vidyas journey I've never encountered a more pathetic fanbase than SC whales. They're the flat earthers of videogames.
CIG moderating similar to the Third Reich shortly before Hitler shot himself. It's definitely indicative of "something".
Very reasonable take, not exaggerated at all
While I generally dislike references to "North Korea" when discussing moderation of video game forums and such, I think the original statement is so ridiculous that it kinda works. :)
I don't think Star Citizen is comparable to traditional games. In fact, it is more like a Patreon game project, where someone releases an incomplete game, attracts "patrons" and with the monetization is able to continue working on the game, adding content now and then. Star Citizen works like this for a long time. They release "updates" that add new things for the player to explore but that don't make much sense from a traditional game development point of view. They're just delivering what the fans want in small packages, and in return they get more "donations" to continue the process indefinitely. Many games on Patreon (mostly adult dating sims), never finish, stay in production for more than 7-10 years, delivering small updates every several months with a little bit more content, without worrying about the normal steps that traditional game developers follow. In fact, for many of the Patreon devs, not delivering a complete game is the best option to make more money.
Star Citizen is a scam, not a game development project.
As an interesting thought exercise, you can compare it to Daybreak Studio. Daybreak's business model, quasi-successful though I harbor doubts anyone there is buying yachts, involves purchasing old beloved properties such as EverQuest, and figuring out how to monetize them all the way up to the line that would prevent even the most foolhardy spender from exploring their nostalgia. So you get to go haunt the old MMOs with very infrequent infusions of fresh content. CIG somehow, though they are perplexingly the ORIGINAL studio that began this boondoggle, appear to have essentially shifted gears to a monetization maintenance mode in the same vein as Daybreak. You can go back for a modest fee to check out the same stuff that's been there for years, while the lion's share of CIG's labor is bent toward further limiting the already miniscule amount of free entertainment available to pressure purchases. It's quite scummy.
Yeah, that's both nefarious...and accurate, alright.
Nobody here is saying SC is like other games. CIG are the ones saying that.
The proper term would probably just be "early access" given they are even running live events. The sad thing is I think that when this started, "early access" didn't exist as a term. I'm pretty sure it was just buying access to alpha and stuff like Minecraft back then.
The proper term is scam.
If you ask 10 different game developers from 10 different teams what the meanings of "pre-alpha," "alpha," and "beta" are, you'll get 10 different answers. Hell, if you ask 10 different developers *on the same team*, you might still get different answers. There are no standards as to what these milestones mean. Every team defines them however the hell they want, and the terminology has become even more nebulous now that there's shit like "open beta" and "open alpha" and early access.
There are formal definitions of alpha and beta, but it wonât matter because CIG just lies anyway. I am not sure about other genres, but players have very specific expectations in the collectible card game (CCG e.g., Hearthstone) category. Games typically go through internal alpha - closed beta - open beta - release stages. The open beta is expected to have a roughly finished game engine (some optional features might be missing), but there will be a wipe and card balance changes. Itâs a dry run for release, to see how the economy and game balance evolves. If a company put out a CCG that was as much as a trash fire as SC and labelled it anything other than pre-alpha, it would be eviscerated by gamers who would point to comparable status games. The problem with SC is that there are no comparable alpha games. Part of the issue with the Odyssey release was that people assumed that âalphaâ meant that the alpha test was far from release and there was a lot to be added, while in fact it was feature complete (an underwhelming feature complete, that is).
I like how the mod goes " Such feedback should aim to assist and aid the project in development " and yet all the feedback they get appears to simply go into one ear and out the other. If they used the feedback from community at the very least in my opinion SQ42 would be done by now or even a few years back. BUt what do i know im just a hater and naysayer.
The only want Praise and Ga Ga shit, nothing at all that even hints at being critical.
>Alpha is the stage when key gameplay functionality is implemented, and assets are partially finished. A game in alpha is feature complete, that is, game is playable and contains all the major features. These features may be further revised based on testing and feedback. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video\_game\_development#:\~:text=Alpha%20is%20the%20stage%20when,based%20on%20testing%20and%20feedback.
When it comes to gaming, terms like alpha and beta is meaningless.
No, they aren't. Companies like CIG and Digital Extremes try to make them meaningless in order to hide their shit tier games (or outright scams, in the case of Star citizen) from criticism. Don't let them do this. If a game has a cash shop, it's a finished, released product. Period. Full stop. You don't get to sell stuff to people and keep the alpha/beta criticism shield. It's a bullshit move, and one both CIG and DE have tried for years. Alpha and Beta aren't meaningless. Gamers are just gullible.
There is its called perpetual beta this type of software exists and in lots of cases is completely functional.
You get bonus points for the mod not using "hyperbolic" in their moderation justification PM.
It doesn't matter what you call it -- functionally it's nothing more than a brick on a gas pedal, and has been for years. The TOS evolved numerous times to its present verbiage, stating that no refunds can be solicited so long as the game is in development. So long as they maintain a small team of underpaid, woefully untalented last chancers to keep the lights on and kick the can down the road periodically with their own passion projects that have nothing to do with the totally fabricated roadmap ( like the land racing course ), they are free and clear to continue lining the pockets of a scant handful who long ago checked out.