Another lead designer leaves sigil.

[Kodylan]

Originally Posted by nyx

BZZZZZZZZZZZT, wrong.

They did have a very VERY strict NDA during friends and family beta, which lasted a hella long time. In a nutshell, Blizzard is smrt. Real beta test = call it an alpha and F&F and keep it very hush hush. Beta test = give the kiddies what they want and go public. Wordplay at its finest.

Late reply to this post, but I just got around to reading this thread and had to comment on this. The level cap at the start of 'beta' was at most 30(I didn't get in until beta 2) I'm pretty sure. I wouldn't exactly call the period before that the real beta. Did you beta test WoW? If you did you'd know exactly how much changed from the time it went beta to release. Quite a bit more than it being the final product for kiddies to get a preview of.

[elrich]

Originally Posted by Sylas

Ahh but there's a difference between having 1 action in your past being defined as untrustworthy and defining a person as untrustworthy. I once stole some lego's from walmart, a very untrustworthy action. That action doesn't define me now, nor did it define me the day it occured. To have a "history of being untrustworthy" requires far more than a single broken promise.


They have a history of a single untrustworthy action, which is far less than the developers making the game can say :P If you'd like to extra-scrutinize something an NDA breaker leaks fine by me (i'd generally give the same advice to anything you read on the internet) but you're being naive not to give the same scrutiny to the pr fluff and marketing ploys from the game makers themselves.


lol riiiight. shill?

Brad how much you paying for blanket defense of your baby? I can discredit people with far more accuracy and venom than these tools and I can be bought for the right price.

Well, what defines an untrustworthy person depends on each individuals outlook. To me, one broken promise is more than enough to never trust the person, but shoplifting I could care less about. This obviously isn't how everyone looks at things, just me.

When asked who I trust more, someone who I know has broken a good-faith agreement, or someone who I don't know has (but I don't know hasn't either) I would trust the second person more. This extends to a lot of things (not everything) but when it comes down to trusting the word of an NDA breaker on the state of Vanguard or trusting Brad, I'll trust Brad a little bit more, but only a little because I know he has a game to promote.

[keflex]

Originally Posted by elrich

...I'll trust Brad a little bit more, but only a little because I know he has a game to promote.

I don't see how you can say this with a straight face.

[GrobbeeTrull]

I was hesitant to post - but I feel that I'll echo the sentiment of a PM I received in regards to my breaking the NDA in such a heinous manner.

In my mind, it is "us vs them". Anyone who breaks an NDA to tell me "save your money, don't play this shitty game" is a hero in my book. Thank you.

All the people who are bitching at you about breaking it or "maybe" breaking it (even Eomer whom I respect very much) are pawns and tools.

Ask yourself this: "What if every single person who was ever invited to a Beta broke the NDA?" Guess what, eventually there would be no more NDA's. Some would argue, "There would be no more MMO's", but they are blind to how much money can be made in this industry. MMO's, for better or worse, are here to stay. NDA's however, are not so solid. Witness WoW....

You, as a Beta tester, are a consumer. I, as an MMO player, are also a consumer. Every time a beta tester breaks an NDA and informs the rest of us, they are doing all of us AND the genre itself...a favor.

All of this goes out the window of course if you are paid. =) But then, that adds a whole new dimension to the equation. But so long as MMO Devs use unpaid beta-testers, I expect those testers to remain more loyal to me (the consumer) than to the company.

Anyway, I feel that if I were to post this publicly I'd catch 10 kinds of hell and seeing as I've never once ever been in a Beta, I'd get crucified.

I just wanted you to know that, consumer to consumer, your post about Vanguard is appreciated.

That right there, validates why I did what I did, in my mind. Take it or leave it, keep referring to me as if I don't read these boards still, whatever it takes. Sorry I shit in your cornflakes, and that you didn't get a beta invite. I didn't do anything special, I signed up for the forums early and had a computer that can handle it. No dick sucking, nothing. Keep at it though, I'd love to see 200+ people testing it instead of what we had then.

[Tuco]

Originally Posted by Gnome Eater

That's stupid, you are implying that somehow certain behaviour only applies to certain actions? Hey, he mugged an old lady, but just because he is violent against old ladies, does not mean he is violent vs everyone.

Once again we see someone trying to prove an apple is bad by saying an orange is also bad.

I won't continue discusion with you, as I generally allow people with a clouded mindset to clear the fog themselves, instead of furrowing their brow at me to try to come up with stupid arguments to disprove my opinion.

However, I will say that in the past, people who have 'broken NDA' by telling the secrets of some game have generally been correct(no one from this board mind you, I reference sources elsewhere).

Since we're making analogies... If Sally has Billy promise not to tell Doug that she likes him, and Billy promises not to, then goes directly to Doug and tells Doug that Sally likes him, should Doug respond with, "Because you lied to Sally, you must be lying to me?".

I'll trust Brad a little bit more, but only a little because I know he has a game to promote.

I feel great comfort disagreeing with you on subjects when you post something like this.

[Sylas]

Grobbee, pretend I sent you a PM with something similiar to that because it also echos my feelings on the matter.

[Khorum]

Except that's how ethics is. Sorry, but yeah, your lego-ganking episode colors your personal disposition towards a lack of respect for property. Some of us went... uh... a little farther than some legos, and even if we never got caught (especially if you didn't get caught) it adjusts your ethical boundaries in ways that wouldn't predispose you for trustworthiness.

Not to say that you aren't trustworthy, even if you ganked all the fucking legos in your state, that wouldn't exclude you from making unbiased observations about a videogame. Insisting otherwise would make for an interesting and amusing stretch. But we all know that ONE guy (or a few people) that's never stolen anything, never lied to gain some benefit or advantage, and we all know that his opinion carries just that more weight because of his integrity. His perspective is no more or less valuable or astute as yours or mine, it just has more traction because of that fact.

Which isn't to say that the devs are pure as the driven snow either, although I'm sure they've left plenty of wiggle room for themselves as far as who was responsible for the worst decisions and how the best things you remember about EQ sprung forth whole straight from their foreheads.

[Zehn - Vhex]

Nothing like shitty real life analogies to cement your argument.

[Sylas]

But we all know that ONE guy (or a few people) that's never stolen anything, never lied to gain some benefit or advantage, and we all know that his opinion carries just that more weight because of his integrity.

walk away from your keyboard, slowly. Now put the knife down and go sit in the corner. The men in white will be there shortly to make all the bad men go away.

[Soygen]

But we all know that ONE guy (or a few people) that's never stolen anything, never lied to gain some benefit or advantage, and we all know that his opinion carries just that more weight because of his integrity.

Honestly, I don't know this ONE guy.

[Esmo]

Originally Posted by Oloh

Bah, nothing is dead. The genre is too young for any part of it to be "dead." In fact, I expect the exact opposite. I think you will see blockbuster titles like WoW, with smaller niche games that push the boundries. One of those smaller niche games will catch on and become the next template for a blockbuster title.

MMOGs will very quickly outgrow thier RPG roots. I expect to see persistant pay-to-play MMOG versions of FPS, RTS and sport games in the near future.

Oloh you're a nice guy and all, but dude... the words of a shill aren't going to be the most trusted. Especially when you're words are the regurgitated statements of Brad McQuaid. If I looked hard enough I could probably find a post on the Vanguard boards by Aradune with almost the exact same language. I don't feel like digging that hard. Instead ...

http://www.vanguardsagaofheroes.com/...826#post931826

Originally Posted by Ominous
I know this is going a bit off-topic, but, Brad, have you considered letting a few more beta testers be like Oloh, so that more posistive comments can help tip the balance against all those NDA breakers claiming that beta is going horribly.

(Aradune's reply)
As a matter of fact, yes.

So speak to us Oloh & tell us how much fun it is. I want details please.

[Murr]

The problem with being a 'hero' for breaking an NDA and the whole line of thought that "if everyone broke NDA, there wouldn't be any more NDAs and we'd all be better off" is that NDAs are partly responsible for what makes these games GOOD. Should they be totally secretive and keep up NDAs up until the day of release? Fuck no, but full disclosure from day one is a recipe for disaster. Every good product generally goes through a phase where it's incomplete and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd give it a favorable review, but given more development time and polish time, voila, it's good! Not to mention all of the business reasons listed by previous posters such as Oloh - NDAs protect companies from "idea theft," media exclusives, core mechanic detail disclosure for testing purposes, spoiler prevention, the list goes on...

Let's be clear here. The problem with this "fuck NDA's" concept is you're entirely ignoring the benefits they provide (and necessities they fulfill) because you claim you should be privy to all aspects of development for a product you *might* buy in the future from inception to release. That's utterly absurd. Should you be able to make an informed decision before purchase? Of course, but all that requires is an open beta period which there's absolutely no reason to think will not be present for Vanguard. There's nothing heroic about breaking contract in the middle of a project to 'warn the consumer' about a game not even scheduled for release within the next few months which will also, as stated, assuredly have an extended period of NDA-free, open beta for your viewing and playing pleasure.

The problem here is jumping the gun. I'm certainly not saying you shouldn't be worried about Vanguard if you put stock in these sorts of things - by all accounts the population totals and peak concurrency are troubling, to say the least, for a game as reportedly far along in development as Vanguard is. But (and I know this post will be quoted repeatedly saying "Omfg vanguard comes out in like 6 months ITS GONNA SUX NO MATTER WUT") it's still *too soon* to be forecasting gloom and doom and breaking contract to 'save' the common man from some horrible destiny of buying this game - because, after all, he or she of course couldn't formulate his or her own opinion once the NDA is lifted before release.

The deal as I've understood it has been this all along:
They develop a game, and, at some point, bring in closed beta testers on the conditions that:
a) They want to help 'test' the game, despite unfinished state
b) They understand that it's unfinished and, by contract, agree to not take that state as indicative of the game on release and go out and break that contract by releasing information to the general public.
Ultimately the NDA is lifted for a reasonable period of time in which Joe Q. Public has every opportunity to open beta the game and decide for himself whether it's worth his $50.

I'm not saying NDAs can, in some cases, be used to conceal glaring flaws in a game (Horizons comes to mind) but to entirely throw them out the window with some sort of righteous, consumers-rights fervor is moronic if mildly hilarious. No one's going to look back in some utopian future that's entirely devoid of non-disclosure agreements - a beautiful future where the vast majority games are aborted in alpha because they just totally suck, man! - and reflect on GrobbeeTrull, the hero of the MMO community, who fought the man and saved us all from wasted purchases. Because, like I previously stated, we certainly can't formulate our own opinions when the NDA is lifted.

[Tuco]

I agree with Murr. (Because he's right)

[forge]

Originally Posted by elrich

I'll trust Brad a little bit more, but only a little because I know he has a game to promote.

Single worst post this board has ever had.

[Cybsled]

Bah, nothing is dead. The genre is too young for any part of it to be "dead." In fact, I expect the exact opposite. I think you will see blockbuster titles like WoW, with smaller niche games that push the boundries. One of those smaller niche games will catch on and become the next template for a blockbuster title.

MMOGs will very quickly outgrow thier RPG roots. I expect to see persistant pay-to-play MMOG versions of FPS, RTS and sport games in the near future.

Oloh you're a nice guy and all, but dude... the words of a shill aren't going to be the most trusted. Especially when you're words are the regurgitated statements of Brad McQuaid. If I looked hard enough I could probably find a post on the Vanguard boards by Aradune with almost the exact same language. I don't feel like digging that hard. Instead ...

But he's right, more or less. Ignore MMOs for a second. Alot of innovation occurs in a "niche" games or sleeper titles, ones you never expected to vault themselves to the lofty heights of best seller. For instance, GTA (although most specifically #3). While other games had done the "do whatever the hell you want" game dynamic, GTA melded it quite nicely with an adventure game. The open-endedness of the game did much to propell it from a "niche" game to a mega blockbuster, and many titles post-GTA3 did much to try to emulate the game design of it...some with greater effect then others.

While VG may or maynot become a trend setter, and if it did to how much of a degree (For instance, FFXI greatly influenced the existance of auction houses and a robust mail system in MMOs), the general principle he stated above does occur in the industry.

As for MMOs busting free of their RPG roots, likewise I think that too will occur. However, unlike RPGs, many of those genres he listed play much more differently and have to be designed so that the persistance matters. Many people are content to play stuff like BF2 with it's ranking system, or play ladder in WC3/SC for absolutely free. You'd have to really put a big ol' carrot in the game to make people want to pay for something they're used to getting for free. MMORPGs didnt have as big a hurdle to cross because alot of the original people who first played the genre remember things like hourly fees for ISP usage or BBS usage, and the same people had roots in MUDs or things like the original NWN on AOL. $9.89 a month seemed cheap to people who used to pay $4 an hour.