The Dead Linger

[Mathas]

The Dead Linger just released on Steam's Early Access. And it's a mess so far...
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuRuUQu0llY

[Realmkeeper]

It doesn't look too bad for an Alpha prototype (which it is), but it's definitely not ready for early access - or even public access of any sort by the looks of it.

What's supposed to be functional, seems functional (though could do with tweaking/finetuning), and what should be possible but isn't seems like it is yet to be added. (I have a feeling the narrator in the video doesn't really properly understand the A/B/RC development cycle - the game is exactly what would be expected from Alpha [Engine Prototyping], but still a long ways off Beta)

 

I'd say the game looks pretty good so far, and about what I'd personally expect from an alpha release (none of this 'public alpha/beta test' bullshit that a lot of indie games seem to be getting in to these days).

Might keep an eye on it.

[SocialReform]

I dont care for the excuse of just labeling your game Alpha. If you have no fuctionality or playability then you have no right to charge the masses for your premature baby. Alpha is ment to improve the features of a game by involving the audience in discussion and suggestions, but the dead linger has no content at the moment so the process is null an void. At the moment the dead linger feels like work. As if I am an intern that does not get paid. $20, Christ! ... they should have to pay you to test this product. I respect supporting the developers but i will not put my trust into something that has no dignity. It feels like they have something up their sleeve... and let me tell you, its not a completed game.

[Realmkeeper]

I dont care for the excuse of just labeling your game Alpha. If you have no fuctionality or playability then you have no right to charge the masses for your premature baby. Alpha is ment to improve the features of a game by involving the audience in discussion and suggestions, but the dead linger has no content at the moment so the process is null an void. I respect supporting the developers but i will not put my trust into something that has no dignity. It feels like they have something up their sleeve... and let me tell you, its not a completed game.

I totally agree there.

It shouldn't yet be released to the public in any shape or form, and although it is looking promising, one would prefer that this was only a tech demo of the game rather than a paid 'early-access' release.

[SocialReform]

It shouldn't yet be released to the public in any shape or form, and although it is looking promising, one would prefer that this was only a tech demo of the game rather than a paid 'early-access' release.

 

I just dont care for the pompous nature of developers today. Example: I make films for a living. I decide to give you the first 5 minuets of the film and say,"hmm, money isn't the lifesource of humans today... so you pay me $20 and I'll think about completing this film. Oh and I wont give you any eta for a release. You just have to trust me".  First, I can't stand the stock market, but if you are talking about fiscal economics then you would understand that ETA's do not make your product "rushed", instead this is a simple way of saying, "i'm lazy and i have your money already". Instead ETA's give you conflict and conflict challenges the mind to create better resolutions. second, If I am investing into your game then I would like to see a cut of the profit. Instead the market is taking advantage of the complacent and obviously bored population as they make you test their games... instead of paying a poor sap to do it. *Sigh* Fucking trickle down economics.

Project zomboid is the only alpha game I have purchased and it will be the last. For 7 dollars I believe Zomboid is a completed game. I spent hours creating wonderful things in this game.  I am certainly not made of money. Making people pay $20 for Dead Linger is explotation, but I guess you can tell me, " Hey, Social... just don't buy the game". Sure your right, but wait a few years down the line and this will become the most successful way to leech customers. A way to create stability for the developers and instability for the masses. People need to stop fearing the creators of games... like they are some gods, no one is god. unite for your worthless money *rant over*

[LeoIvanov]

 

It shouldn't yet be released to the public in any shape or form, and although it is looking promising, one would prefer that this was only a tech demo of the game rather than a paid 'early-access' release.

 

I just dont care for the pompous nature of developers today. Example: I make films for a living. I decide to give you the first 5 minuets of the film and say,"hmm, money isn't the lifesource of humans today... so you pay me $20 and I'll think about completing this film. Oh and I wont give you any eta for a release. You just have to trust me".  First, I can't stand the stock market, but if you are talking about fiscal economics then you would understand that ETA's do not make your product "rushed", instead this is a simple way of saying, "i'm lazy and i have your money already". Instead ETA's give you conflict and conflict challenges the mind to create better resolutions. second, If I am investing into your game then I would like to see a cut of the profit. Instead the market is taking advantage of the complacent and obviously bored population as they make you test their games... instead of paying a poor sap to do it. *Sigh* Fucking trickle down economics.

Project zomboid is the only alpha game I have purchased and it will be the last. For 7 dollars I believe Zomboid is a completed game. I spent hours creating wonderful things in this game.  I am certainly not made of money. Making people pay $20 for Dead Linger is explotation, but I guess you can tell me, " Hey, Social... just don't buy the game". Sure your right, but wait a few years down the line and this will become the most successful way to leech customers. A way to create stability for the developers and instability for the masses. People need to stop fearing the creators of games... like they are some gods, no one is god. unite for your worthless money *rant over*

 

 

I'll use the same thing I was told in the "Piracy discussion" topic : Nobody holds you at gunpoint and forces you to buy the game. Mathas has created a video, showcasing you the game that went on early access, which means it's not finished. You can watch the review and decide whether or not the game appeals to you. If you don't feel like the game is finished, then ignore the product, and let the others decide for themselves. It's called "Early-Access" for a reason, and let me tell you, there are games on Early Access that look worse than this.

[Rathlord]

It doesn't look too bad for an Alpha prototype (which it is), but it's definitely not ready for early access - or even public access of any sort by the looks of it.

What's supposed to be functional, seems functional (though could do with tweaking/finetuning), and what should be possible but isn't seems like it is yet to be added. (I have a feeling the narrator in the video doesn't really properly understand the A/B/RC development cycle - the game is exactly what would be expected from Alpha [Engine Prototyping], but still a long ways off Beta)

 

I'd say the game looks pretty good so far, and about what I'd personally expect from an alpha release (none of this 'public alpha/beta test' bullshit that a lot of indie games seem to be getting in to these days).

Might keep an eye on it.

 

The problem with this is that you've got a very 'traditional' idea about Alphas (which, I should say, I normally agree with). But now that developers are releasing alphas we do need to change our definitions a little bit. So- if this was a tech demo, or an engine test, then I could give them some slack. But,

 

A ) They've already released it to public,

B ) It's horrible and there doesn't appear to be a single feature working as intended, and

C ) They're charging for it

 

Even in actual game design without the whole indie-release-in-alpha thing, I still wouldn't consider this alpha. Alpha should mean that major parts of the game exist, but not all features. Your definition of alpha stretches farther back in the development process than it should in my humble opinion. An engine test is not an alpha- it's an engine test, a tech demo, or a pre-alpha.

 

What really tops it all of is the absolute audacity of the developers claims and how absolutely snide and asinine they are about it on top of it being complete trash in its current iteration.

 

It could be great years down the road, but I'm certainly not banking on it (literally or figuratively). I wish them the best of luck, but at the same time not expecting anything.

[CaptainBinky]

Totally agree with Rathlord concerning the meaning of "alpha".

 

DISCLAIMER

I AM TALKING GENERALLY, NOT ABOUT ANY SPECIFIC GAME

 
The argument of "give it a break, it's an alpha" rather misses a couple of key points:

• The term alpha is currently used to mean anything from "tech demo" to "the build a month or two before we hit beta"
• Because of 1, gamers have no way to know what it means if a game labels itself alpha
• Because Early Access is still new, if a game is available there they may make the reasonable assumption that if a game is on Steam, it must be fairly complete because Steam has a reputation for being strict on what things appear there. This problem will diminish over time, but people aren't stupid for making that assumption.
• So instead, they look at the price and legitimately compare one £10 alpha to another £10 alpha
• If one of those alphas is a tech demo alpha, and the other is a just before beta alpha, and they've spent money on the former and they feel let down, they are likely to say so. Possibly angrily.
• Not everyone has £10 of disposable income. Not everyone lives in the States or Western Europe. This might represent the only game purchase they make in 3, 4, 5, 6+ months.
• Essentially telling these people they're stupid for not understanding alphas is insulting and rather missing the point.

If you charge £10 for something, it's going to be judged alongside other things which are £10. If the game falls short under that comparison, an "it's an alpha!" defence is no defence since you're basically acknowledging that the game isn't currently very good but in a confrontational way as if they should have known that and are therefore stupid.
 
If someone compared Zomboid to another game sold for the same price, and concluded that Zomboid lacked under that comparison... fair enough, fair complaint. We priced Zomboid low in order to soften the blow of it being early in development (and also because often, 2D must mean cheap - "WTF £xxx for some stupid 2D game that looks like it was made in the 80s?!? LOL" etc) - I'm not sure to what extent that worked, or helped - but I genuinely believe it's been worth more than £5 for a while.

[nasKo]

It's called "Early-Access" for a reason, and let me tell you, there are games on Early Access that look worse than this.

Not trying to be a dick, I'm just genuinely interested; can you tell me which games you're refering to?

[LeoIvanov]

 

It's called "Early-Access" for a reason, and let me tell you, there are games on Early Access that look worse than this.

Not trying to be a dick, I'm just genuinely interested; can you tell me which games you're refering to?

 

 

Can't link at the moment due to how horrific my internet speed currently is, but I recall there being a game which consisted of only a map where you can run around and shoot a couple of guns at monsters.

[plekpot]

I want to like the Dead Linger, but just can't at this stage of development. At this time i'm not willing to invest 19 € into it, that's too steep for what i'm seeing right now. Appareantly the game was much more stable at the 009 build than at the 010 (engine change). It's to be expected that the game is very buggy right now, the developers have released it to Steam too early in its production cycle. People who are just now discovering Dead Linger will be put off by all the glaring bugs still in the game. 

 

It looks a bit prettier now, but the thing that's offputting for me is the sterility of the game world (i've made another post about this) due to it being randomly generated. Seeing this, I prefer Project Zomboid's hand crafted world because it feels more real and although it's not always something new each time you play, it's still more fun for me. I might buy Dead Linger 1.5 to 2 years in the future, but the developers are planning to increase to price to 30 $ so we'll see.

 

PS: Project Zomboid seems ok for a steam release now, but I understand wanting to wait for NPC's. Are there any plans to raise the price for PZ to say 15€ when it's finished?

[nasKo]

Are there any plans to raise the price for PZ to say 15€ when it's finished?

The price will go up, yeah. It's not clear how much it will be, though. At least not as far as I know

They probably have plans for that.

[harakka]

Stage 1: Alpha (Current): Discounted price of $19.99 USD!

Stage 2: Beta: Discounted price of $24.99 USD!

Stage 3: Release: Final release price of $29.99 USD! That’s $20 less than most AAA games with similar amounts of content!

Source: http://www.thedeadlinger.com/info

[nasKo]

 

Stage 1: Alpha (Current): Discounted price of $19.99 USD!

Stage 2: Beta: Discounted price of $24.99 USD!

Stage 3: Release: Final release price of $29.99 USD! That’s $20 less than most AAA games with similar amounts of content!

Source: http://www.thedeadlinger.com/info

 

Oh, wow.

[Rathlord]

 

 

It's called "Early-Access" for a reason, and let me tell you, there are games on Early Access that look worse than this.

Not trying to be a dick, I'm just genuinely interested; can you tell me which games you're refering to?

 

 

Can't link at the moment due to how horrific my internet speed currently is, but I recall there being a game which consisted of only a map where you can run around and shoot a couple of guns at monsters.

 

 

You're almost certainly talking about Starforge Alpha here. It is bad, and I was disappointed on what I spent my money on. Even worse, their video shows a whole shitton of features that aren't even in the game (presented as if they were in the game).

 

But judging it solely on gameplay value, not on my expectations or disappointments, it's worlds away from The Dead Linger. The weapons work, the spawning works, the crafting works, the world generation works. There are a few bugs, but for the most part it's very alpha-y. It's a game in progress that's not feature complete, and I can respect that.

[LeoIvanov]

 

 

 

It's called "Early-Access" for a reason, and let me tell you, there are games on Early Access that look worse than this.

Not trying to be a dick, I'm just genuinely interested; can you tell me which games you're refering to?

 

 

Can't link at the moment due to how horrific my internet speed currently is, but I recall there being a game which consisted of only a map where you can run around and shoot a couple of guns at monsters.

 

 

You're almost certainly talking about Starforge Alpha here. It is bad, and I was disappointed on what I spent my money on. Even worse, their video shows a whole shitton of features that aren't even in the game (presented as if they were in the game).

 

But judging it solely on gameplay value, not on my expectations or disappointments, it's worlds away from The Dead Linger. The weapons work, the spawning works, the crafting works, the world generation works. There are a few bugs, but for the most part it's very alpha-y. It's a game in progress that's not feature complete, and I can respect that.

 

 

If we are talking about the same game here, I want to say that The Dead Linger, in it's current state, is more appealing to me than that game. It does not pretend to be something it isn't, and isn't afraid to show it's bad side, even if it means the loss of reputation and a future loss of potential profunds.

 

I have seen Dead Linger's previous state in build 9 (? I think). It wasn't as buggy as I seem to gather. From their thumbnail it seems like they have moved their engine over onto Unity, which is really known for it's insability and occasional bugs, if you ask me. The only bad move they did was move onto Early Access without polishing out the features that they've already got in. Also, atleast Dead Linger knows which direction it's coming, and lets people know it. That other game I mentioned earlier doesn't even bother to inform me what I'm supposed to expect as a final product.

 

Edit : Seems like a good chunk of my reply was gone, so I'll sum it up in a shorter version :

 

Dead Linger still isn't in a state where I'm comfortable buying it. I'd rather wait until it's steps (Like, literally, steps) away from moving into Beta state, and see if it is good enough, and THEN i'll buy it. Which is a thing I'd suggest other people to do aswell. I don't want to buy something that "hopes" to become a good zombie game. I'd rather wait for it to become one.

[Ontogenesis]

If we are talking about the same game here, I want to say that The Dead Linger, in it's current state, is more appealing to me than that game. It does not pretend to be something it isn't, and isn't afraid to show it's bad side, even if it means the loss of reputation and a future loss of potential profunds.

 

I have seen Dead Linger's previous state in build 9 (? I think). It wasn't as buggy as I seem to gather. From their thumbnail it seems like they have moved their engine over onto Unity, which is really known for it's insability and occasional bugs, if you ask me. The only bad move they did was move onto Early Access without polishing out the features that they've already got in. Also, atleast Dead Linger knows which direction it's coming, and lets people know it. That other game I mentioned earlier doesn't even bother to inform me what I'm supposed to expect as a final product.

 

Edit : Seems like a good chunk of my reply was gone, so I'll sum it up in a shorter version :

 

Dead Linger still isn't in a state where I'm comfortable buying it. I'd rather wait until it's steps (Like, literally, steps) away from moving into Beta state, and see if it is good enough, and THEN i'll buy it. Which is a thing I'd suggest other people to do aswell. I don't want to buy something that "hopes" to become a good zombie game. I'd rather wait for it to become one.

 

Thing is, I think they should be afraid to show their bad side, because it's pretty much every mechanic of the game, judging from mathas's video. It makes me question their motivation for moving to Early Access. It takes the concept of early access way too far in my opinion. Very poor decision that will lead to heavy damage to their reputation. Also, they seem to be deleting/moderating all bad talk/refund talk on their steam page.

[LeoIvanov]

 

Thing is, I think they should be afraid to show their bad side, because it's pretty much every mechanic of the game, judging from mathas's video. It makes me question their motivation for moving to Early Access. It takes the concept of early access way too far in my opinion. Very poor decision that will lead to heavy damage to their reputation. Also, they seem to be deleting/moderating all bad talk/refund talk on their steam page.

 

 

Yeah.. Rushing on early access was -the- mistake. I am not particularly defending their decision - it might be their first project after all, but I'm fearing that it might get mixed up in shit as deep as WarZ is in right now. Dead Linger has potential, it has friendly (Although a bit amateur-ish) developers, and wants to not dissapoint. One single wrong step - and they are doomed to ultimate fail. And all they wanted was to spread the word about the game somewhere further than their forums.

[Rathlord]

From the stories I've heard I can tell you their developers aren't friendly. They act snobbish and superior.

Anyways, their current mistakes lead me to believe they will be making more in the future.

Edit: As Lemmy stated below, the opinions I'm expressing are my personal opinions and are in no way affiliated with The Indie Stone or Project Zomboid.

Further, I'd like to clarify that I mean no ill will towards their dev team- I simply disagree with how they've handled things.

[lemmy101]

I feel the need to make it clear, just as a disclaimer, but not that I should need to, that anyone on the moderator team have their own opinions and we respect their right to discuss them regardless of their affiliation with our game, and they may or may not represent Indie Stone's own views, but no assumptions either way should be made.

 

The dev team ourselves just don't like or want to get involved with any specific judgements either way when it comes to other similar genre indie titles, it makes us uncomfortable, and don't want to condemn or condone anyone's decision as to when they should appear on Early Access, even though we may have strong opinions on the subject ourselves and may generally air these opinions with regard to our own plans for Early Access. 

 

(EDIT: oh Rath that wasn't a criticism about anything you said, or how you said it, btw  I just felt the need to foot note it with several mods weighing in, in case anyone saw the staff sticker and applied any point of views directly to us. It'd be a shit state of affairs if you felt you couldn't express yourself freely about games on a forum you call home. )

[Cl0nec0mmand0]

Totally agree with Rathlord concerning the meaning of "alpha".

 

DISCLAIMER

I AM TALKING GENERALLY, NOT ABOUT ANY SPECIFIC GAME

 

The argument of "give it a break, it's an alpha" rather misses a couple of key points:

• The term alpha is currently used to mean anything from "tech demo" to "the build a month or two before we hit beta"
• Because of 1, gamers have no way to know what it means if a game labels itself alpha
• Because Early Access is still new, if a game is available there they may make the reasonable assumption that if a game is on Steam, it must be fairly complete because Steam has a reputation for being strict on what things appear there. This problem will diminish over time, but people aren't stupid for making that assumption.
• So instead, they look at the price and legitimately compare one £10 alpha to another £10 alpha
• If one of those alphas is a tech demo alpha, and the other is a just before beta alpha, and they've spent money on the former and they feel let down, they are likely to say so. Possibly angrily.
• Not everyone has £10 of disposable income. Not everyone lives in the States or Western Europe. This might represent the only game purchase they make in 3, 4, 5, 6+ months.
• Essentially telling these people they're stupid for not understanding alphas is insulting and rather missing the point.

If you charge £10 for something, it's going to be judged alongside other things which are £10. If the game falls short under that comparison, an "it's an alpha!" defence is no defence since you're basically acknowledging that the game isn't currently very good but in a confrontational way as if they should have known that and are therefore stupid.

 

If someone compared Zomboid to another game sold for the same price, and concluded that Zomboid lacked under that comparison... fair enough, fair complaint. We priced Zomboid low in order to soften the blow of it being early in development (and also because often, 2D must mean cheap - "WTF £xxx for some stupid 2D game that looks like it was made in the 80s?!? LOL" etc) - I'm not sure to what extent that worked, or helped - but I genuinely believe it's been worth more than £5 for a while.

yah because if alpha means its a shitty game thats saying pz is a shitty game which in every way it is not (this game is amazing)

[Realmkeeper]

yah because if alpha means its a shitty game thats saying pz is a shitty game which in every way it is not (this game is amazing)

The point being, that Alpha does not mean it is a shitty game. More commonly, Alpha implies that the game is still far from ready for public scrutiny (Being incomplete, bug-ridden, and possibly still missing the core features/functionality)

 

Alpha is the (usually) first stage in software testing. By Wikipedia's definition - 

The alpha phase of the release life cycle is the first phase to begin software testing [...]

Alpha software can be unstable and could cause crashes or data loss. External availability of alpha software is uncommon in proprietary software. The alpha phase usually ends with a feature freeze, indicating that no more features will be added to the software

Beta however, is the stage at which most games should become available to the public. It's a lot more stable than an Alpha build, and involves testing the implemented features and functionality, rather than adding more.

Again, by Wikipedia - 

Beta is the software development phase following alpha. It generally begins when the software is feature complete. Software in the beta phase will generally have many more bugs in it than completed software, as well as speed/performance issues and may still cause crashes or data loss. The focus of beta testing is reducing impacts to users, often incorporating usability testing. The process of delivering a beta version to the users is called beta release and this is typically the first time that the software is available outside of the organization that developed it.

 

Alpha generally means that more features are still being developed for the underlying engine, and the robust testing of those features is not yet underway.

The game/software is not usually publicly available in it's alpha form, and in my opinion, releasing a game while still in Alpha is a pretty big gamble by developers - as it could make or break potential players opinions of what they are presented with, especially if they had to pay to become a part of the exclusive alpha community.

[lemmy101]

No actually, alpha in proper commercial dev is 'all game features complete/functional, can play game from start to finish, but possibly with placeholder graphics / sounds and lack of polish and whatnot and bugs obv.'

 

And beta is 'All game features complete, all final graphics / sound etc, with bugs potentially'.

 

The indie use of alpha is pretty much nothing to do with true commercial games development process 'alpha'.

[Cl0nec0mmand0]

No actually, alpha in proper commercial dev is 'all game features complete/functional, can play game from start to finish, but possibly with placeholder graphics / sounds and lack of polish and whatnot and bugs obv.'

 

And beta is 'All game features complete, all final graphics / sound etc, with bugs potentially'.

 

The indie use of alpha is pretty much nothing to do with true commercial games development process 'alpha'.

wouldnt this make this a beta well i guess the lack of npcs is in there but still you updated thr graphics but theres still 1 more problem with graphics if you zoom all the way in your guy looks terribly ugly and blocky

[nasKo]

wouldnt this make this a beta well i guess the lack of npcs is in there but still you updated thr graphics but theres still 1 more problem with graphics if you zoom all the way in your guy looks terribly ugly and blocky

The indie use of alpha is pretty much nothing to do with true commercial games development process 'alpha'.

---

Also, please take a look at our forum rules, Cl0nec0mmand0.

http://theindiestone.com/forums/index.php/topic/108-forum-rules/?p=1349

Take note of "Rule" 3, as your posts are really really hard to read due to a lack of at least ending a sentence with a period.

It'd be coolski if you could put some structure in your posts