Originally Posted By son_of_montfort
        Here is the thing I think regarding buggy releases in regards to MH2. Everyone who pre-ordered has access to the beta. Thus, the game has been "released," in a fashion, already since May. So, for many buyers, the game has already been in a "wait for next patch" state. So what is the difference between how it is now and how it will be Tuesday? It's a semantic change from "beta" to "released" but not a practical or actual change in state.         I see the point regarding too-early releases, but when you have a public beta for purchasers, the game plan does seem to shift. I mean the flaws are out in the open already and people are very well informed upon the state of the game if they do just a little research. If you pre-ordered, nothing actually changes at all. So I guess I'm not sure I see the big deal.         Of course, I was in the early adopter group of the original MH and it had some of the same development history. It also blossomed to be an excellent game, so I'm hoping MH2 follows the same path.         SoM    

Originally Posted By Grim.Reaper
       

Originally Posted By son_of_montfort
        Here is the thing I think regarding buggy releases in regards to MH2. Everyone who pre-ordered has access to the beta. Thus, the game has been "released," in a fashion, already since May. So, for many buyers, the game has already been in a "wait for next patch" state. So what is the difference between how it is now and how it will be Tuesday? It's a semantic change from "beta" to "released" but not a practical or actual change in state.         I see the point regarding too-early releases, but when you have a public beta for purchasers, the game plan does seem to shift. I mean the flaws are out in the open already and people are very well informed upon the state of the game if they do just a little research. If you pre-ordered, nothing actually changes at all. So I guess I'm not sure I see the big deal.         Of course, I was in the early adopter group of the original MH and it had some of the same development history. It also blossomed to be an excellent game, so I'm hoping MH2 follows the same path.         SoM    

        Som,           Personally, I do think there is an issue here, although I agree that not everyone might share my opinion.  For this particular game, there are three types of buyers.           1)  Pre-Order Beta - Up until actual release, nobody can really complain about their pruchase           2)  Pre-Order - People who ordered to show their faith but do not want to participate in the beta.  They just expect to receive the game as intended on release.           3)  Day One + Purchasers - People who just wait until the game is released and expect it to work as intended.           For type #1, really not much to say about this since if you signed up for the beta, you should expect bugs through the release.  But at the same time, you should have the opportunity to beta test "all intended" features before release which is not necessarily the case from what I have seen.           I'm more talking about buyer types #2 and #3 who have no desire to be beta testers and expect on release day that all features are included and game working as intended.  We can all agree that no software ever releases without some kind of issues, but hopefully it is done so without the developer freely acknowledging they exist.  I completely understand not every system configuration can be tested, so some CTDs and such related to systems is expected.  But non-working features or missing features, that is a different story.  On top of that, I'm not sure I have seen a report yet that suggests somebody has actually been able to complete an entire game.  Granted, maybe they aren't just posting, but still kind of odd.           I also don't think you can rely on the average game buyer to always conduct research on the game before making the purchase.  Although there are a lot of people who frequent forums, I'm guessing and equally large (or bigger) group don't ever look there.  They see it on a shelf and assume it must be in a working state to have been released.  That shouldn't be an unreasonable expectation, otherwise nobody would ever purchase on day one.           Maybe I wouldn't have such a big issue if every game advertisement or game box included a warning such as "Game does not currently work as intended and we know there are expected features still not included...so purchase at your risk that we are going to eventually address all these issues."  If this was stated, then everyone would be equally informed and then can decide to purchase or not.  Obvisouly, this would never happen.           I know that this is not the only developer who has done this, but I have beta tested a number of games and this is probably the first time where I have seen the developer acknowledge the game still having fairly decent issues, but still proceeding with the release.  Sure, the other developers released with some issues as well, but for me personally nothing like what is still being reported during the beta test.  Another reason is I really wanted this game to be "the one" and I can only this game receiving a lot of ill will during the release (although already released).           I wish them the best and hope everything turns out ok.    

Originally Posted By son_of_montfort
        I understand the sentiment Grim, but I still think releasing public betas with pre-orders changes the dynamic. For the record, I wasn't stating anything was "right" or "wrong" about this, just that - for those that pre-ordered, there isn't really any difference.         I think that I agree with some of the above sentiment that, giving open beta access to those that pay for a game is semi-dangerous and forces you to follow a stricter schedule since you have the money (of course ALL pre-ordering does this). But for a small company with a small QA department it might be the only way to get reliable beta results.         Am I disappointed that the release won't be full out bug free and fully featured? Yeah. Am I surprised? Not really. Will it ruin my day? Certainly not. I'm confident they will pull MH2 together like they pulled MH together.         SoM    

Originally Posted By jomni
        I think it's ok for small companies to release public beta since more players will result into more bugs found.           Now here is where the system breaks down.           1) The public beta testers are not professional and will not hunt for bugs faithfully.  Some may find the game boring and unplayable and not play the whole game from start to finish like a dedicated QA tester.  Since they already paid for the product, this is sort of an incentive to continue but it's is not always the case.      2) The developers do not / cannot rectify all the bugs found in time for the promised release.           Anyway, I used to work in the software industry (financial software for banks) and I am now still dealing with software implementations most of the time in my current work.  The truth is, software is never going to be 100% bug free.  We should see software as a service and not a product.  We pay for the service of the developer to constantly improve their product beyond first release.            Anyway bottom line is that the saftest bet is to wait until the product evolves into something good.  But the risk is that if no one has faith in the product... there won't be funds available for future development... and we won't get to a stage where the product becomes good.  Chicken and egg?  It all boils down to the committment of the developers (who must work with little funding), and the committment of gamers.    

Originally Posted By Arctic Blast
        It could simply be a case where finances are become an issue. It's nice to say that all games should be held until they're in tip top shape, but the company has to remain financially solvent for that to become a reality. At a certain point, the money being spent on development and polish needs to be recouped.    

Originally Posted By Wodin
        Pre the internet when games came on a tape I can't remember them not working right when I bought them...or on the old floppy or hard disks...granted games weren't as complex then.         Also remember how say the Atari St or even the ZX spetrum etc came out...and as time went on the games got better and better as the programmers began to optimise as they got used to the technology...this doesn't happen anymore...due to the speed of new hardware...I expect an awful lot of optimisation is getting lost as they developers just have to jump to the next bit of hardware rather than optimising games and pushing the presnt tech of the time to it's limits.    

Originally Posted By Arctic Blast
        It could simply be a case where finances are become an issue. It's nice to say that all games should be held until they're in tip top shape, but the company has to remain financially solvent for that to become a reality. At a certain point, the money being spent on development and polish needs to be recouped.