The Dead Linger

[Realmkeeper]

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

Can you give us a better understanding of your interpretation of Alpha within the indie scene?

 

I'm curious as to how your view differs from that which applies to the wider software development community. I mean, I understand that indie devs usually employ closed beta testing as a means of revenue during the development process, but using tactics like paid early-alpha releases are, in my opinion, a rather faith-based form of revenue gathering.

I personally think that the 'general' development process should still hold relatively true to gaming, even indie games - though with a lot more leniency.

For example, selling (heavily discounted) copies of a game while it has little more functionality than movement, hostiles, and combat is almost never acceptable. But selling copies of a game which has the basic fundamentals that set it apart from others of it's genre in place and loosely working, even if the 'essentials' are not in place, or the underlying engine is subject to change, would be considered alright because it already has some prospect of implementing something unique.

A tech demo of standard genre features is not considered a very worthy game, but one containing a trove of unique or imaginative combinations of functionality is very much the base of something in progress.

[CaptainBinky]

In our opinion, there is a difference between "alpha funded builds" and an "alpha build".

 

The alpha build will be pretty much the last major build prior to us going into beta. Therefore, in this context "alpha funding" means you are helping us fund development through to alpha. After that, we're approaching the final release candidate which we can sell as a full game, and the development funding is therefore no longer required.

 

So really, every single build you download or update of PZ before then is a pre-alpha, right up until we've basically got every core feature in (although possibly in a slightly buggy state). We fix stuff, release a beta, fix some more, and release the "final" build. From that point, we continue to provide updates and expansions beyond what we set out to accomplish for as long as its viable.

[lemmy101]

Yeah, alpha has just become a kinda short-hand for 'I'm selling this before its finished' these days. ;D

 

We should start doing Omega builds just to fk with people.

[Rathlord]

Much like words in literature, the very nature of alpha is changing with time. For general software dev it may not change, but in game development the term is taking on a new meaning- largely Minecraft's fault, but something that has largely been 'on the wind' for more than a decade. So, while in textbook terms you're technically correct, you're a bit off from what it's generally uses to designate.

[CaptainBinky]

Much like words in literature, the very nature of alpha is changing with time. For general software dev it may not change, but in game development the term is taking on a new meaning- largely Minecraft's fault, but something that has largely been 'on the wind' for more than a decade. So, while in textbook terms you're technically correct, you're a bit off from what it's generally uses to designate.

 

DISCLAIMER

I AM TALKING GENERALLY, NOT ABOUT ANY SPECIFIC GAME

 

Yeah, but this is no good because the new meaning is too broad. The whole point of a label is to give people some kind of understanding of what to expect. This newer, broader, meaning could mean literally anything from "there are untextured cubes everywhere as placeholders, and none of the gameplay is in" to "the game is complete, but with a few bugs".

 

How on Earth is a gamer, particularly one who is not familiar with game development methods and varieties thereof, supposed to have any idea what to expect? Should we place all the burden of responsibility on the user (well, it's your fault, you should have researched more thoroughly), or is it up to us to help people understand the situation in our specific case? Is it any wonder people get confused and angry? (That was rhetorical, the answer is "no")

 

If people get angry because this flavour of alpha does not meet their expectations, then is this not more an indictment on our ability to communicate and provide a reasonable build (one which provides them with value for money now, not hypothetically in the future) - after all these people are consumers, not employed testers - rather than of their ability to read?

[Nickenstein79]

I'm gunna release my game when it's at Wigwam-Delta-7. Anyone who doesn't know what that means is a buffoon.

[Xydonus]

The definition of alpha in game development seems to always take different forms. Its never consistent and only serves to cause flame definition wars on forums throughout the internet.

 

Developers will have their own sense of what an alpha means and in a lot of cases just twist the meaning for their own desires. It will differentiate from what others think and cause a rift. I don't know at what point did the true meaning of alpha development cease to exist, but it doesn't exist anymore. It has become incredibly murky territory.

 

I like to think I know what an alpha is when I see it but sometimes it just gets harder to tell...

[Rathlord]

 

Much like words in literature, the very nature of alpha is changing with time. For general software dev it may not change, but in game development the term is taking on a new meaning- largely Minecraft's fault, but something that has largely been 'on the wind' for more than a decade. So, while in textbook terms you're technically correct, you're a bit off from what it's generally uses to designate.

 

DISCLAIMER

I AM TALKING GENERALLY, NOT ABOUT ANY SPECIFIC GAME

 

Yeah, but this is no good because the new meaning is too broad. The whole point of a label is to give people some kind of understanding of what to expect. This newer, broader, meaning could mean literally anything from "there are untextured cubes everywhere as placeholders, and none of the gameplay is in" to "the game is complete, but with a few bugs".

 

How on Earth is a gamer, particularly one who is not familiar with game development methods and varieties thereof, supposed to have any idea what to expect? Should we place all the burden of responsibility on the user (well, it's your fault, you should have researched more thoroughly), or is it up to us to help people understand the situation in our specific case? Is it any wonder people get confused and angry? (That was rhetorical, the answer is "no")

 

If people get angry because this flavour of alpha does not meet their expectations, then is this not more an indictment on our ability to communicate and provide a reasonable build (one which provides them with value for money now, not hypothetically in the future) - after all these people are consumers, not employed testers - rather than of their ability to read?

 

 

I don't disagree with you here. The problem is, much like in literature (again) despite people's best efforts, the meaning will change no matter how hard people try to fight it*.

 

The way to approach the situation is twofold in my opinion: equal parts caveat emptor and the developer being open and honest about their product. I certainly wouldn't go so far as in your example to call someone stupid for being fooled by the 'alpha' term, but a certain amount of research (proportional to the money one spends) is necessary. An equal part of the burden falls to the developer.

 

In the mean time, during which this confusing term sorts itself out, it should just be used very carefully or avoided when possible.

 

Would you agree with my reasoning there?

 

*

A good example in literature being "enormity," which should only be used to describe the vastness of something's evil but has, unfortunately, fallen into use to just mean size and has now even been added to the dictionary as such. This is outlined in one of my favorite books (Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style") in which they vehemently attempt to defend the classical use of such words, but have obviously failed in light of the last 100 years since it was written. Fantastic read, by the way, if you haven't had the pleasure.

[CaptainBinky]

Would you agree with my reasoning there?

 

Yes. Although while I acknowledge that meanings change, if they broaden too much then we need a new term. Another example (although one which is not so broad) would be "free to play". As a term it implies a straightforward, "it's free" - after all, what else is there to with a game other than to play it? But of course nowadays, the term would be more accurately described as "free to examine" since often-times although you're free to poke around and try things out, to really "play" it as designed, requires payment of some form. I'd imagine there are many free to play developers out there making games which are free to play in the truest form, in that the only purchasable items are cosmetic. And I'd imagine that they are similarly dissatisfied with the negative baggage the term has become loaded with. But there's only so many categories you can place games into before things start getting really silly, so they're stuck with it.

[Rathlord]

Aye, couldn't agree with that sentiment more. There are some games that have done free to play very well (such as Guild Wars 2, in my opinion) and some that are plain slander to the term (such as DCS World which, while very impressive, should never have used that term). The same is true for alpha, and unfortunately it's going the same way in terms of meaning. I personally have just shifted my views to the point where I ignore the designation all together and simply make my own judgements from hearsay and the evidence at hand.

[Nickenstein79]

Before I say anything, I'm adding the following disclaimer:

 

I've not been a Zomboid dev for a looooong time now (I dare say most readers of this are probably thinking "Who the flip is this guy?!") but I can't stress enough how much my opinions on this matter are my own personal thoughts and nothing at all to do with PZ or TIS.

 

----------------------------8<---------------------------------

 

I have been biting my tongue on this for a very long time, as being an indie developer myself I squirm at the idea of bad mouthing other indies, but now I'm rather vexed, so I need to vent.

 

Some very very good things have happened over the last few years that are making it more and more possible for small indies with great ideas to get their much needed break.

 

Kickstarter is one of those things. Valve's Greenlight and Early-Access programs are two more.

 

These things are a blessing. A god-send. It's the game-dev equivalent of inventing a new flavour of biscuit in your kitchen at home, and then being able to get Tesco or Walmart to stock it right next to the bloody checkout if you can get a bunch of people to say they like the taste!

 

However, as with all good things, they are being abused left, right and centre.

 

I remember the dead linger kickstarter. To my memory it was a picture of a spanner and a promise of a brand-new concept set in an expansive 3D procedurally generated world.

 

Results of that Kickstarter campaign:

 

1.) Moon on a fucking stick promised. CHECK

2.) $100,000+ raised in a weekend. CHECK

    -- time passes (over a year and it's no better) --

3.) Shockingly abysmal highschool-grade prototype. CHECK

4.) Further erosion of public trust pertaining to ALL Indies and Kickstarter. CHECK

 

But hey, they got what they wanted, right? 

 

This is why I'm annoyed. I'm yet to use the Kickstarter platform to gain funding. But I hope to do so quite soon. And it's this kind of shite that will make doing so that bit harder. Every day I see tweets about Kickstarter fatigue. And nonsense like this only serves to compound the issue.

 

And now we have the Steam Early-Access of TDL.

 

Guess what? $100,000+ of trusting consumer's cash and over a year dev-time later, we have........ a rather poor showing indeed. 

 

I really wouldn't have a problem with that in and of itself. After all, the Sandswept forum community seem happy enough with it, and they did legitimately have enough of a fan-base to get through the greenlighting process. Their fans wanted it on steam, they've a lot of fans, so now it is. Fair enough, that's the system.

 

My problem is this: $20!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Now that it is on steam, it's not solely being put before Sandswept's pre-existing fanbase. A fanbase pre-primed to enjoy any old shite that sandswept squeeze out. It's now being prominently put directly into the faces of every member of the PC gaming community. Right alongside high quality things such as State of Decay.

 

Fun fact: State of Decay & TDL are both on steam, same price, both in the early-access category. Your regular Joe logging onto Steam with no prior knowledge of TDL could be forgiven for thinking these two things might be equivalent. (One is a really polished zombie horror game, one is an utterly broken stand-in-an-empty-field simulator.)

 

If the price reflected what it's currently worth, then that would be fine. But the price reflects what they promise it _will_ one day be worth. And they are now two years into development without anything to show pertaining to even the most rudimentary gameplay aspects of a zombie confrontation. So exactly how much salt are people expected to take with these promises? Let's not forget that they are promising a full living breathing PLANET populated with wildlife, planes, trains and auto mobiles, cities and everything else you could possibly want in a VR-sim from the year 3017. And in two years they have just-about managed to cobble together the wonkiest road generator in history and some (not-procedurally-generated) buildings jutting out from the side of a wonky hill.

 

I've looked at the discussion threads on Steam. Lots of people asking "What the fuck is this twoddle? I was robbed!", and those threads get promptly deleted lest the next sucker be dissuaded/educated by them.

This average consumer logs onto Steam, is presented with something priced at $20 and assumes a certain level of competence and quality. Because they have come to trust in a certain level of quality from indie games, because of the hard work of indie developers of the past.

This is exactly the consumer trust in indies that is being eroded away by this kind of garbage.

 

It took many great indie games to build up that level of consumer confidence in indies to begin with. And now that hard-earned trust is being utterly pissed away.

 

If they were asking $3 to $5 dollars then I wouldn't have an issue. But as it stands, people are being stung. And they are feeling stung. And they are actively voicing that they feel stung on the steam page for TDL. Those threads are being deleted from Steam, and so more people will be stung.

 

This is bad bad bad so very very bad for all indies.

 

 

Seeing TDL next to State of Decay on Steam, with the same price-point and same Early-Access category, to all intents and purposes makes the casual observer assume an equivalence that simply does not exist, which brought this old sketch to mind:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy6uLfermPU

[Xydonus]

I totally agree. But what can ya do? That's the world we live in sadly.

 

Perhaps stricter regulation on Kickstarter? That will only hamper developers and in the end make it harder to achieve funding.

 

If you create a system with little to no regulation that relies on trust, its going to get abused. Fact.

 

Those who funded The Dead Linger despite the fact that their Kickstarter page contained nothing but a few models and abstract concept art are also equally at fault. Although some might argue that's exactly what Kickstarter is; for funding early prototype projects regardless of the lack of content on their page. Not everything coming out of Kickstarter is going to be a gem. There have already been plenty of failures and a few scams also. Nature of the game.

 

However much the Kickstarter funding scheme gets tarnished by failed projects, scams, let downs and in some cases just blatant false advertising, the general public are a forgetful bunch and they'll fall for the same trick time after time.

 

People will wise up aright but you'll still have masses out there who will gladly throw their money at the mention of Zombies and other hypes.

 

Steam is also another culprit; they don't regulate what goes onto Greenlight or its Early Access program. They'll only act when they get hounded by complaints and even then that's temporary punishment.

 

Kickstarter/Indiegogo and Steam in general are all built on trust. Its a flawed system but again; whats the alternative?

[Nickenstein79]

I wasn't suggesting an alternative. As I said at the top of my post I think these systems are great.

 

I just really needed to vent about a clear and present danger. (It's been swelling in me for a long time.)

 

As you rightly say, the whole system is built on trust. I hate seeing that trust squandered and eroded, especially when I know that I will be relying on that trust soon. 

[Rathlord]

Nickenstein I couldn't agree with you more. I actually just posted on Mathas' reddit page about this that I think one of the biggest things he and so many others miss is what a tremendously negative impact stuff like TDL has on the gaming industry, and indie gaming in general. Indie gaming is really still in its infancy and stuff like this must be held accountable for its impact on it. Stuff like this is killing the indie games industry before it even comes to fruition and that's simply inexcusable and unforgivable.

 

As far as TDL goes, like I said- it boils down to one big thing. 2 years of development, probably made at least a million dollars so far, asking a $ 20 check for the 'game,' and it's still nothing but a broken concept. And now that it's in Unity it's even more embarrassing, because as I've said before Unity is in some situations (such as this one, possibly) nothing but a crutch for crappy developers (not that I'm saying Sandswept necessarily are, just that that's what Unity gets used as). Pretty much anyone with some game dev background could have something better than what they have working in Unity in about a month.

 

Disclaimer: Again, I wish Sandswept the best of luck and I don't have any personal issues with them. I disagree with their choices but still respect their rights to develop how they want to.

[Batsphinx]

I won't get embroiled in the guts of this argument, not least because I've never played the game.

 

BUT

 

I think it worth chipping in to say that from the limited contact I've had with TDL and the times I've browsed their twitter/forums they've seemed a very positive and passionate bunch, and they're clearly putting a shift in to fix the Steam release.

 

That's me though - all sunshine and rainbows.

 

Carry on!

[lemmy101]

 won't get embroiled in the guts of this argument, not least because I've never played the game.

 

BUT

 

I think it worth chipping in to say that from the limited contact I've had with TDL and the times I've browsed their twitter/forums they've seemed a very positive and passionate bunch, and they're clearly putting a shift in to fix the Steam release.

 

That's me though - all sunshine and rainbows.

 

Carry on!

 

 

 

Yeah agreed, I'd go on record as saying whatever people may feel about the game or progress or timing of Early Access release, they are dead cert passionate and sincere in their goals and ambitions for the game, so not sure their motivations can be called into question.

[LeoIvanov]

Woaaaah there. 

 

Now that my internet speed is back to considerably normal to the point of being able to watch videos, I can see what a collosal disaster the port to the new engine it turned out to be.

 

Not only the game drops to 1 frame per minute when it loads in too many objects, now most of the stuff seem outright not working the way they DID work in previous engine. Doors make a slow, annoying "Creeeeeeeeeeeeeaakkkkk" when before they did a normal "Squeak!1". Weapons, furniture blatanly clipping (falling, rather) through walls, and all the other stuff that I honestly NEVER expected to end up turning from "fairly functional" to "Disastrously broken".

 

I can see what's going on now, and why the game has made a fair amount of controversy around it's appearance in early access.

[Baron]

I'm wishing TDL devs all the best of luck and success, as I do for all indie devs, but seeing this makes me want to voice my opinion which I have kept to myself until now. I watched with interest as PZ and TDL developed side by side, since both were zombie survival themed games with the only major difference being isometric vs first person. With both games being in alpha, I was completely prepared to see game-crippling bugs, accompanied by a slow arc of progression. As PZ developed, the devs posted demos, blogs and videos, saying "Here is where we are, we acknowledge the bugs and we know we have far to go." Whilst PZ (in the early days) was getting lashed out of it by unhelpfully harsh critiques on a game they acknowledged was unfinished, TDL was generating huge hype on nothing but promises and concept art (inc fan-made concept art). Their kickstarter campaign reached almost 3 times it's goal without a single proof of concept other than a textured item or two. I sat quietly as fans in TDL forums pitched ideas and talked about the massively overreaching concepts the indie devs were going to achieve, without a single dissenting voice or skeptic on the forums. I tried to be supportive and not be condescending for the devs' sakes, since for all I knew they could pull it off.

 

Now that videos and playable demos are out, I'm annoyed. I applaud them for undertaking such an ambitious project, but I hate the exploitative business model that is a consequence of Steam's otherwise awesome Early-Access/Greenlight system. If you pitch in on a Kickstarter project you know you are really just supporting an idea that may or may not manifest into a quality product. But a product on Early Access should have some resemblance of a playable product -- there should be some standard of quality. What TDL is now is a tech demo, or a concept demo. I'm not bothered they have not reached the overstretched goals they set themselves (hopefully they will one day) -- I'm bothered they are still selling a concept like it is a product.

 

For two games that took off together, look at where PZ is now in comparison to TDL. I know they are not the same game and development for both have varying times, but what I am getting at is that at the stage it is i now, I see PZ as absolutely deserving of an Early Access status, yet the devs themselves don't want to exploit their game until it has passed their own standards check. TIS are still my fave indie studio because of their humility.

[Nickenstein79]

Spot on. Absolutely spot on. And a far better worded piece than my foamy-mouthed rant.

[KrazyKrackA]

Didnt have time to read whole post but i bought The Dead Linger and guy on steam forums asked if it was better than 7 Days to die and i told him truth which is no and they banned me and posted a message trying to promote their game to him. Heads up stay away from this game if not because of the state it is in then stay away because of their developers very bad way of doing business if you ask me.

[KrazyKrackA]

Sorry for invading your forum I typed The Dead Linger dont buy in google and your forum is first on list. After reading through the post you guys are exactly right and i told them every thing you are talking about lol and they banned me now the next sucker is gonna get stung sad thing im going to school for programming and The Dead Linger goes agianst everything ive been taught. Customer means nothing to them and if steam keeps this up i will buy else where. Never heard of your game but im gonna buy after reading this forum you guys seem to have the right look on things Thanks.

[CaptainBinky]

Sorry for invading your forum I typed The Dead Linger dont buy in google and your forum is first on list. After reading through the post you guys are exactly right and i told them every thing you are talking about lol and they banned me now the next sucker is gonna get stung sad thing im going to school for programming and The Dead Linger goes agianst everything ive been taught. Customer means nothing to them and if steam keeps this up i will buy else where. Never heard of your game but im gonna buy after reading this forum you guys seem to have the right look on things Thanks.

 

Thankyou KrazyKrackA

 

I should mention, though, in the spirit of diplomacy and goodwill towards fellow indie developers that when you're working on something you deeply, deeply care about, criticisms (even well intentioned, useful criticisms) can be a bit of a kick in the teeth. We haven't always handled ourselves, er, flawlessly in this regard either

 

It's a learning experience - going from obscurity to being thrust in people's faces (as with happened when our game ended up on the front page of Reddit briefly, or by opening yourselves up to the Steam marketplace).

 

In any case, I think we've got better at it now (although perhaps our community may wish to disagree with us ) so please feel free to be as honest as you like on our forums. Our only rule is to be lovely - so providing you're not throwing insults at other forum members or slagging off our mums then it's pretty much fair game

[zombo]

Sorry for invading your forum I typed The Dead Linger dont buy in google and your forum is first on list. After reading through the post you guys are exactly right and i told them every thing you are talking about lol and they banned me now the next sucker is gonna get stung sad thing im going to school for programming and The Dead Linger goes agianst everything ive been taught. Customer means nothing to them and if steam keeps this up i will buy else where. Never heard of your game but im gonna buy after reading this forum you guys seem to have the right look on things Thanks.

I follow their forums almost daily, and they seem to be pretty lenient in that respect.  I have seen a few threads bashing the game, or even a bit of questioning their credentials as developers, stuff like that.  In the cases I've seen, they seem to handle it pretty well, some of those threads got locked but only after they allowed a fair bit of discussion including some polite defenses and such.

 

Maybe I just haven't seen it myself, I don't read every thread there, but when I saw some mentions here of them being super strict like this I was surprised.

[Rathlord]

Well it's without question that they've been moderating the Steam forums with a chainsaw and wrecking ball. It would stand to reason that they would do their own the same way, but perhaps not.

[zombo]

Well it's without question that they've been moderating the Steam forums with a chainsaw and wrecking ball. It would stand to reason that they would do their own the same way, but perhaps not.

Ohh the Steam forums, I have never read those.