This is getting silly.

[Thumb-Hands the Brave and Mighty]

I'm really disappointed by how silly people are being, Towns is a good game, visibly inspired by things such as dwarf fortress and being worked on and improved all the time. And for some will be horribly boring, as will dwarf fortress, but that isn't to say that it's a bad game, just that it's not the genre you expected.

Steam doesn't mean that a game will be 100% completed, nor that it will be bug free, Steam doesn't mean that you will necessarily enjoy the game, nor that you will feel it’s value for money.

So, basically I am saying, get over it, you had all the relevant information that should have indicated to you that the game was still being worked on, you all should be able to realise when you get a game that you don't enjoy, that the decision to purchase it, and the responsibility is on you, and that unless the developers are actively trying to screw you, I.e. WarZ, you shouldn't feel the need to rant about how hard done you have been because well, it's your fault. You bought it.

And I get that when a game is disappointing that well, it sucks. But lots of people are playing and enjoying towns, but it’s a very niche game. So it’s never going to appeal to everyone.
That's just how it is.

[TheronGodspeed]

Some of what you say is just blatantly false. Troll.

But, I'll risk feeding you...

Steam (and the developers) were NOT up front about the state of the game when it was released. So NO, people did NOT have "all the relevant information that should have indicated to you that the game was still being worked on."

Get over yourself.

[Mumboejumboh]

It's never a good idea to try and make a poignant point while simultaneously completely dismissing people. I don't think you even really read the things people are bringing up about the game, because if you had you might have noticed that there are some legitimate issues with Towns that, until fairly recently, weren't being addressed in the slightest.

To be honest, it's really hard to take you seriously when you broadly paint everyone that has issues with the game as being "silly".

[Cyborgt]

Messaggio originale di jeremyareed:

So NO, people did NOT have "all the relevant information that should have indicated to you that the game was still being worked on."

To add to that point, I actually looked around quite a bit and right after the release of the game and there really weren't many videos of the most recent build (v8a I think it was at the time) of the game. I believe I found maybe 2 channels total with videos of that build at that time and those videos didn't even come close to showing everything.

I always find it hillarious when someone makes the argument that "the information was out there" when trying to defend the game. It's neither refuting the stated issues nor actually presenting any positives. It's also factually incorrect for being able to determine the exact state of the game.

[TheronGodspeed]

"Absurdist" is perhaps an appropriate moniker. The claims are certainly absurd, anyway.

[Johari]

I lament every one of these threads.

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

Typical Towns Defense Squad response: insult and blame the user instead of actually looking at the problem. Majority of your post is nothing more than typical TDS nonsense.
Feature complete means that it cannot be an alpha or beta product. Yet, Towns was still in Alpha testing right before the official launch to Steam.

Actually, it was beta.

[Cyborgt]

Messaggio originale di ownomics:

I lament every one of these threads.

Can't really blame you there. They're not terribly productive.

Messaggio originale di ownomics:

Actually, it was beta.

That one is actually pretty tricky as I understand it. I wasn't there during the pre-release but from what i've been told it is true that there was a beta stage. The problem with it is that (again, from what i've heard) it was very short lived, changed almost nothing and involved a smaller select portion of the consumer base they had prior to launch. As such, for the majority of their customers (and in terms of what was publicly visible) it effectively went straight from alpha to release. It was even rumored that the "beta" was nothing more than a quick check to make sure the game functioned properly through Steam.

It has been a while since I looked into the details of that issue so I could certainly be missing something in there. I just remember that that whole issue never really looked very good for SMP.

None of that really matters though. There are far bigger problems to pick on in relation to Towns than that but at least they're still working on it.

[Johari]

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

Messaggio originale di ownomics:

I lament every one of these threads.

Actually, it was beta.

Got proof?

Well it wasn't alpha, that's for sure.
Do you have proof that it was an alpha? No?
It(v9) wasn't even close to alpha anyway.

[Johari]

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

Yes... I have proof... as I was there doing the testing during Alpha. And, I was still testing the game right before it released to Steam and I do not actively recall any public announcements that we were now testing the Beta.

Doesn't mean it was actually an alpha though.
A game in "alpha" state will have a great majority of its intended, planned and confirmed features and mechanics unimplemented, buggy or broken; most of its textures, models and/or UI incomplete, unrefined, missing or non-existant(with the possibility of placeholders); be unreleased(assuming they don't follow the minecraft purchase model); be closed to the vast majority of its community if not the entirety and so on.

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

desist on spreading your baseless statements.

Sounds to me you're getting a bit passive aggressive there.
I'm going to ask you to not attempt to start an argument over a single, miniscule detail and to discuss the topic at hand in a pragmatic and objective manner.

[Johari]

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

No, until the devs publicly state that the game is out of Alpha and now in Beta, then the game is still in Alpha.

Whatever you call it, it doesn't necessarily line up with what it actually is.
See:
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/alpha-test
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/A/alpha_version.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,1237,t=alpha+test&i=37674,00.asp

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

Messaggio originale di ownomics:

Sounds to me you're getting a bit passive aggressive there.
I'm going to ask you to not attempt to start an argument over a single, miniscule detail and to discuss the topic at hand in a pragmatic and objective manner.

Oh... the irony. Hint: I wasn't the one that stated "It was in Beta".

That is largely irrelevant to the block of text you quoted, my friend.

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

baseless statements.

See above.
Also, it seems illogical for a game to jump from the alpha state to released in such a small timeframe. Think about that for a moment.

[Johari]

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

Collinsdictonary's definition is useless as Alpha testing is not only done in house. Towns, Gnomoria, Project Zomboid, and Endless Space are four examples of games that could be purchased while still in Alpha to Alpha test the game.

As such, not all games follow that plan.
Note that every one of the games you listed is indie and don't have much funding nor a very large team. They essentially have to release some version to their community if they ever want to assure quality.

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

Webopedia's definition doesn't disqualify my statements what-so-ever. The game was not and still is not feature complete.

As to be expected of a newly-released game. Did you seriously think any game released to the public for purchase would not receive any more updates?

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

Wikipedia's also doesn't disqualify my statements either. The game was not an still is not feature complete.

See above.

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

And, PCmag's definition is also completely useless as Alpha testing is not only done in house anymore.

With the average game, it is. If the developers actually have a qualified studio and aren't greenhorns in the business, they'll usually do much of the testing and refinement privately before releasing it to a selection of players for further review and QA.

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

Where's the actual statement from the devs before the game was released on Steam that Towns went from being an Alpha test to a Beta?

Forgive me for not being as single-minded as you, but I don't care to provide any "statement from the devs" which denotes whatever the state of the game was prior to the release.
It was a simple observation that the game "right before it was on steam" was in no way qualified to be considered an alpha.

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

I know it's illogical. But, its still a fact. I have yet to see a public statement from the Towns devs before the release on Steam, that the game went from Alpha to Beta.

See above.

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

I KNOW it was in Alpha because it was actively advertised as such on their website when I purchased it in the middle of last year.

That still does not mean it was an alpha. It may have been labeled one, but it wasn't in a state which could be considered an alpha by any part of the gaming community outside of a few minorities whom seem to think that there is no difference between an alpha and a beta.
That would be you.

[Cyborgt]

Messaggio originale di ownomics:

Well it wasn't alpha, that's for sure.
Do you have proof that it was an alpha? No?
It(v9) wasn't even close to alpha anyway.

First point, it was v8a not v9 that was available at release. Secondly, i've seen alpha stage games that were more functional than towns so it really doesn't mean much to say whether it was "even close to alpha anyway."

Messaggio originale di ownomics:

Doesn't mean it was actually an alpha though.
A game in "alpha" state will have a great majority of its intended, planned and confirmed features and mechanics unimplemented, buggy or broken; most of its textures, models and/or UI incomplete, unrefined, missing or non-existant(with the possibility of placeholders); be unreleased(assuming they don't follow the minecraft purchase model); be closed to the vast majority of its community if not the entirety and so on.

A product can easily still be in alpha with only a single feature missing. An alpha is very rarely a fully functioning product but this honestly just sounds like you trying to make alpha sound worse than it really is just to make a point. This argument just falls flat, especially when you bring up a game like Minecraft in your argument which itself wasn't nearly as bad as your description would imply during its alpha.

Messaggio originale di ownomics:

Also, it seems illogical for a game to jump from the alpha state to released in such a small timeframe. Think about that for a moment.

No duh it seems illogical. That's the reason anyone brings it up to begin with. It's actually a verified fact that what beta did exist was very short lived. Illogical does not mean untrue.

[Johari]

Messaggio originale di Cyborgt:

First point, it was v8a not v9 that was available at release.

Pardon then. I don't remember the steam release being V8.

Messaggio originale di Cyborgt:

Secondly, i've seen alpha stage games that were more functional than towns so it really doesn't mean much to say whether it was "even close to alpha anyway."

As I have stated before, that is a label.
The alpha state is what I've been trying to convey which is generally understood as a very rough, preliminary release or preview of a game.

Messaggio originale di Cyborgt:

A product can easily still be in alpha with only a single feature missing. An alpha is very rarely a fully functioning product but this honestly just sounds like you trying to make alpha sound worse than it really is just to make a point.

I don't see how.
Any alpha I've ever experienced or witnessed may hold multiple criteria of which I listed in my post.

Messaggio originale di Cyborgt:

This argument just falls flat, especially when you bring up a game like Minecraft in your argument which itself wasn't nearly as bad as your description would imply during its alpha.

I never said minecraft's alpha was bad nor that it fit my description of an alpha.
Again, as I tried to explain, alpha can be a label or a state.
When I read "alpha" in the software context I think of the alpha state.
I don't go by what the game is labeled by unless necessary.

The reason I mentioned minecraft is because it had a specific purchase model that I don't know the formal name of. The purchase model was semi-related to my original point and so you have reasoning for my mention of it(which was actually its marketing strategy rather than the game itself).

Messaggio originale di Cyborgt:

It's actually a verified fact that what beta did exist was very short lived.

Tell that to Nalidus, not me.

Messaggio originale di Cyborgt:

Illogical does not mean untrue.

I never correlated the two nor did I imply or state that the two are synonymous or closely tied.

[Johari]

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

I see... So, because they're indie that means they don't follow the norms?

No.
Because they are small companies that actually, get this, aren't backed by millions of dollars and dozens of staff members and have a dedicated QA dep't -- they can't really privately test, polish and fix their alphas on their own without help from the community.

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

Uhh... for someone who was trying to invalidate my claims with links about product development terminology, you really have shown that you have a real lack of knowledge about product development terminology with your statement.

Or I simply don't want to re-iterate upon something that has been defined, developed and enumerated upon by countless other individuals and studios.

While I have refutations backed by sources which are the logical descendants of those mentioned in my previous statement, all you have supplied is an anecdote and simplistic statements that provide no new ground on your previous retort(s).

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

"Feature complete" is not the same as "complete".

I never correlated the two, implied they were the same nor explicitly stated that they are closely related.

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

Again... grasping at straws. Just because they are an indie company does not mean they do not follow commonly accepted gaming development cycle.

Re-read my statement.
In a nutshell, I stated that it is more conservative on resources and time as a small company or team to release your project as a demo or semi-closed alpha or beta to your community for bug-finding and further refinement rather than privately polishing the product and attempting to root out all problems by oneself.

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

You can keep saying it was in Beta till you are blue in the face. It doesn't make it truth however.

Hon, if you'll re-read my posts -- you'll see that I only ever explicitly labeled Towns as a beta once.
That is what started all of this misunderstanding.

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

So... actively advertised and publicly stated as an Alpha by the game's devs doesn't actually mean it is in Alpha?

As I stated so very many times before, it may be labeled as an alpha... but it isn't necessarily in an alpha state.

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

Also, you are in the minority when it comes to understanding the true development cycle of this game when it was released.

I like how you provided reasoning for this profound declaration. [/sarcasm]

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

your statements are baseless, illogical, and not worth my time.

I was about to say the same about yours. Thanks for saving my time.

[76561198069409126]

I am not sure why is this important was it alpha or beta, because different developer have different thoughts about in what stage game can be called alpha or beta today. The game can be rushed no matter in what stage in development it was and how devs named it.

But lets say this, first there was no official statement from devs on their forum that the game went to beta. But devs made a testing beta group with few people back in october, so they went to beta, but did not announce it. The only info people can find about it being beta on the forum is from one of the beta testers.

[Fizban Frobozz]

Messaggio originale di Nalidus:

FYI: Valve requires Greenlit games to be feature complete (aka out of Alpha and Beta) before the game can be sold on Steam.

Apparently, this isn't true.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/227220/

Towns dev's, either through ignorance or malice, just didn't bother trying.