I think similarly to CeNedra. Backers Build 5 looks like product where most of content was just thrown into, without polishing and checking all the things. Even without balancing and correcting some of the basic values. But their internal build is more complete and probably without most of the issues we encounter in “our” build. Imagine amount of feedback received just with F12 functionality. Quality team must continually sit there and fix all of this, so their internal build must be without most of the issues we encounter. I suppose that most of the fixes was just like “change it for enabled”,“add exception handler at the end of that action”, “add border check for this loop”, “put that IF check before this line”, “add false condition to that alien’s AI action check”, “enable this function for other aircrafts” etc. Those are all quick fixes.
All larger things which players request on this forum right now are probably postponed after release to appear in some DLC.
I disagree, we need to point out the problems/issues as fast and strongly as possible; ofcourse the developers and such have a plan and we all have various expecations if they are not meet things will fail.
Sure we do, but we are not quality testers as they usually are. We don’t have all necessary tools to test everything. And we definitely can’t change development plans.
With the massive jumps from backer build to backer build, I have little doubt the real build is miles ahead of where you are giving it credit. The jump to the current backer build was miles ahead of where we all thought it was going to be.
I think the game will be complete on time but it will be a matter of balancing and bugs.
But this is not the development build. Unless I am wrong they did complete production period (made all the pieces) and they are putting everything together, polishing, balancing.
The fact that beta doesn’t contain certain mechanics, doesn’t mean that they don’t exist - there plenty of reasons why some wouldn’t make it into beta - from spoilers to unfinished UI.
Backers don’t have access to the game as it is being made. They get access to a demo builds put together precisely for that purpose.
Not that it is impossible that some of promised features were scrapped in the production.
I do agree with @Yokes. I feel like this build was mostly thrown together to make up for the delayed release. If this is all what they have I would be worried. But they are a sizeable team, with ambitious game on their hands, an epic controversy and a lot of eyes on their release. They have to do better then that. How good it really is we will see when 1.0 hits.
Let’s say the game is feature complete and 1,5 months are left for bugfixing and polishing. It is impossible to find all bugs without a widespread testing and I seriously doubt that this release be will smooth.
I play Anno 1800 (which had a closed and open beta) and I shouldn’t have touched it for at least 3 months.
To much missing, to many bugs in BB5. Not much time left, I’m still expecting a very bumpy release.
I’m still rooting for a the 90% tough and I honestly would like to have another delay till 2020
First of all, content in backer beta had to be locked well before it was released for public meaning stuff you see was most likely at least weeks old before its September release. We don’t get to see progress made since the content lock for BB5 was made, and many things may not have been included by choice. It would be more fair to count something like 4 months between what we see in BB5 and 1.0
I can’t comment about beta for Anno specifically. However, keep in mind that “beta” is used loosely - in mainstream gaining beta are rarely betas: we get to stress test servers and play demos before official release.
What we get with backer betas are vertical slices, more similar to what internal builds are, then demoes or trailers released to the public.
The reason so many E3 trailers and demos are fake is not pure malice, but because before game is put together one has only vision of how the game is supposed to turn out like.
If you watched documentaries or interviews about game production you might know that such E3 demos or builds for publishers often consume a lot of time and resources: sometimes “hacking” mechanics, meaning implementing them in a quick way for the demo purposes, which will need to be redesigned for actual game to work as intended.
Usually we don’t get to see games in a raw state, as it is not good advertisement: therefore the history of CGI trailers, fake gameplay or scripted demoes. Look at any pre-release demo, and you will most likely recognise how fake it is, when compared to final release.
None of us has seen game develop first hand. Is Phoenix Point on track for December release? I got no clue. Fretting about is pointless unless someone is willing to pay for longer development period.
Hopefully it will be fine on release date. If not hopefully they will use time after to fix it.
Great wording! That’s exactly what I feel. But the point now is into quantity of that small fixes, their overlays and inheritance. So I don’t want to talk about new backer build honestly. I just want to offer one more revision. Just to make sure that we don’t get an avalanche of completely new unexplored bugs in final release. Because, actually, developers already shook slightly their credibility.
Do not get me wrong - but when developing my projects, I would be afraid to present my product to customers even at the idea level, if it were so raw. Probably I’m too perfectionist. But here we talk not about Idea, but about final stage. So one more revision - isn’t it fair enough?
Smartest thing to do would be to let that final version roll out to backers a week or so in advance so that you can get that final bug fixing feedback.
Backer builds take time and energy to put together, but you only get one chance to make a 1st impression upon release.
Why? All you do is give access full game, who unlike press, are unreliable when it comes to not spoiling things. You overestimate our usefulness. There might be something they will not find, but any major bugs are more likely to be a result of not having time to fix it, rather then not finding it.
My faith? Thank you, though I don’t know how you knew I am a religious person.
I am preparing for the worst. I haven’t trusted in a game releasing in a good state for a long time. Less broken hearts this way. So far PP still looks like bunch of ideas with potential but not developed to the point of being fun.
I paid money to see Gollop helm an XCOM like game, and I am patiently waiting to see what the final game will be, no matter if it’s a turd; a flawed but interesting game; a generic XCOM copycat; or a brilliant masterpiece. Thats crowdfunding baby: the first thing you have to accept is that the final game might turn out to be a steaming pile of poop - and then things can only get better.
My very first concern when talking to a friend when fig campaign was in progress was how ambitious the project was. It wasn’t something Gollop hasn’t done before, but with so many systems and ideas things can end up being broken - or simply not not fun. My friend decided to wait to release, I was willing to bet a modest amount of cash and see what will happen. Its like a game of poker - money you out into the pile needs to be considered as fee-for-fun without hoping to get it back.
Whatever happens on release, there is not point for us to worry about it:
-We are not able to gauge in what state the game is in (backer beta aren’t a good indication because of reasons I have stated and restated numerous times)
-If snapshot doesn’t have enough time to finish the game we can’t do anything about it, unless someone is willing to fund additional months of development out of their pockets.
-we can’t do anything do make things getter. Pointing out a problem exists doesn’t make it disappear. One complaining about bugs, imbalance, mechanics doesn’t improve them. I am sure devs are fully aware of he problems their game has - more so then we are. That’s creators curse.
-If backer access to final build week before release would grant enough time to address games issues, then it’s irrelevant. If the game will be in good enough state that Snapshot can fix problems within first week of release, all will be good. If not, then early access to the game won’t help anyone in anything, but might cause angry backer buzz before game launches, which would be bad for Snapshot.
Releasing final build before game release is not backer beta - it’s staggered release, with release being delayed for everyone who didn’t pay extra, and it’s a crappy thing to do. Game should have one release only, without having to pay extra to access the game on release.
What the developers think or not think is fun its unclear as we do not know; its super easy as a developer to get tunnel-vision and belive something is fantastic but when in reality it might not be; or obviously the other way around also a possibility.
And to be completely honest; FUN is all that matters a bunch of bugs, inbalances or stuff like that can and in most cases will be fixed in the fist patches as it always happens in all games.
Noone should be botherd to much if the first release contains above mentioned bugs or not; as long as they get fixed quickly.
What we all; Us, those that not bought the game yet and the developers primarly should be focusing on is if the actuall game mechanics are fun, interesting, complex, engaging or not a completely bug free game that is boring; is useless; a super fun game that has some bugs in it can be fixed.
Obvisouly game breaking bugs/features or strangeness; such as using will power to run around all the map in one turn, its just crazy! I mean the example stated in various threads that one for example should not be able to develop plasma rifles in the time span the game is in; ok cool; but using willpower to run more than double the distance is? So clearly that is something that needs to be adressed.
Or getting all your weapons destroyed over and over again by random handgrenades; its realistic or not; its not important the fact is its super furstrating and boring and those kinds of things call it a bug or not will just kill the intrest to play the game.
These are the things that early adapters needs to yell out loud about so that it is not in the final product.
Aswell as point out, specify or come with suggestions on what is missing for the game to actually be fun!
If its not FUN, noone cares if its realisting, bug-free and/or what not.
I assumed everyone understood that; putting some hope in what may or may not be in a future release is flawed; we need to commend on what we see, what we have and what we are actually playing.
I’ve some difficulties to understand that.
This game seems excellent but I am just a little disappointed. I thought to help the developers by buying the version with the early access (even it’s more expensive) and follow the evolution of the game, over the alpha versions, then beta … until its final release in December, as with other games.
But this is apparently not the case.
In fact, I exaggerate a little but I paid 20 € more than the price of the game, just for a nice “demo” version !!!.
but I like what I saw and I encourage the developers to release a fantastic game, as it seem to be the case !
And we definitely can’t change development plans. 
and I honestly would like to have another delay till 2020 
