Wolfenstein: The New Order - Gameplay trailer.

[JDR13]

With so many good games coming out this year, I almost forgot about this one. It's probably my most anticipated non-RPG title. I like this trailer I stumbled across on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5NazZLoBNw

 

[DArtagnan]

Have they said anything about level design? As in, are they small, linear and scripted as per the norm?

My favorite Wolfenstein game is definitely Return to Castle Wolfenstein from 2001 - which I really loved - because it had wide open levels compared to most shooters.

 

[SpoonFULL]

Bethesda also annouced that you get Doom 4 beta keys with Wolfenstein pre-orders.

A triple A developer/publisher going the early access route and getting profittable beta testing - clever Bethesda and really shame on them (beta testers used to get paid in the past by the developer/publisher).

Either that or the game will be terrible and they are using Doom 4 as a hook.

Besides, why would they want beta testing for Doom 4? Is it going to be multiplayer driven?

 

[DArtagnan]

Bethesda also annouced that you get Doom 4 beta keys with Wolfenstein pre-orders.

A triple A developer/publisher going the early access route and getting profittable beta testing - clever Bethesda and really shame on them (beta testers used to get paid in the past by the developer/publisher).

Either that or the game will be terrible and they are using Doom 4 as a hook.

Besides, why would they want beta testing for Doom 4? Is it going to be multiplayer driven?

NEWFLASH:

Some people don't want beta access to actually help test it - but to check it out early.

Some people can consider it worth preordering for that reason, since they're going to get the game anyway, and they're not necessarily wrong.

All games need beta testing - regardless of being singleplayer or multiplayer.

 

[SpoonFULL]

Some people don't want beta access to actually help test it - but to check it out early.

Then let them release a demo (or shareware as they did with the first doom) - not a beta for releasing an unfinished and buggy version for testing by people.

All games need beta testing - regardless of being singleplayer or multiplayer.

Sure if it was a relatively long game especially singleplayer/rpg games where the 'demo' does not give out any spoilers. But for a few hour single player shooter with buggy beta released to the public - it does not make sense and strongly suggests multiplayer beta.

 

[DArtagnan]

Then let them release a demo (or shareware as they did with the first doom) - not a beta for releasing an unfinished and buggy version for testing by people.

They can release a demo as well. But if people want to pay for beta access, why not? I don't see the problem.

Sure if it was a relatively long game especially singleplayer/rpg games where the 'demo' does not give out any spoilers. But for a few hour single player shooter with buggy beta released to the public - it does not make sense and strongly suggests multiplayer beta.

I'm afraid you have no idea what you're talking about here, sorry.

Any game that's beyond tic-tac-toe will require beta testing - and again, they're not necessarily doing this to get help testing it - but to earn a profilt by selling something people want.

Rationalize your point - instead of saying it's wrong. People want it - they can get it. They're not paying more - they're just preordering.

WHAT is the problem?

 

[SpoonFULL]

They can release a demo as well. But if people want to pay for beta access, why not? I don't see the problem.

Why not the developer and publisher test it themselves? They don't want to spend money on beta testing themselves and QA since there will be people who will actually 'pay' them to test it - you don't see that being wrong, I see it as exploitation to increase profits (by cutting cost of beta testing and increasing the high cost pre-orders).

I guess it is also fine with you to sell arms and weapons because there are people wanting them and others making money from selling them, or selling drugs to mention few examples.

Again, different opinions!

I'm afraid you have no idea what you're talking about here, sorry.

??

 

[DArtagnan]

Why not the developer and publisher test it themselves? They don't want to spend money on beta testing themselves and QA since there will be people who will actually 'pay' them to test it - you don't see that being wrong, I see it as exploitation to increase profits (by cutting cost of beta testing and increasing the high cost pre-orders).

Because people are willing to preorder to gain access to the beta. I wouldn't mind, personally, since I'm probably getting the game anyway. Why not gain access to beta on top of it. It's not like I'll feel obligated to provide feedback. There's no contract there.

It's like some people going to the movies to watch a trailer for a film they're excited about. Is that wrong as well?

How can that be exploitation. No one is forced to do anything - they're giving people a choice.

How can that be bad? You fail to rationalize why.

I guess it is also fine with you to sell arms and weapons because there are people wanting them and others making money from selling them!.

Yeah, because games and weapons are the same thing. Let's try and be serious.

Again, different opinions!

What else would it be?

My opinion has been rationalized - yours hasn't. You're saying it's wrong - but you don't explain why it's wrong.

WHY is it wrong to give people that choice? How is that exploiting them - since they can simply not preorder and buy after launch?

??

?? ??

 

[SpoonFULL]

My opinion has been rationalized - yours hasn't. You're saying it's wrong - but you don't explain why it's wrong.

To you it is not rationalised because it does not agree with your own mind set.

In my view it is explotation since people pay more for (aleady high cost) pre-orders and testing buggy software while the developer and publisher cut cost and make more profit.

I am not talking here about peoples' choices as it is up to them - I am talking about the principle of conducting business based on exploiting the customer.

 

[DArtagnan]

To you it is not rationalised because it does not agree with your own mind set.

In my view it is explotation since people pay more for (aleady high cost) pre-orders and testing buggy software while the developer and publisher cut cost and make more profit.

I am not talking here about peoples' choices as it is up to them - I am talking about the principle of conducting business based on exploiting the customer.

No, you've failed to rationalize it because it's not rational. That means there's no logic involved. Logic is one of the very few ways we have that can go beyond pure subjectivity.

You CLAIM it's exploiting the customer - but you've provided no rational explanation for how that works. Exploitation in this case would be trying to get people to pay for something they don't actually want - and to try and market their product as something it's not.

If this was somehow forced upon people - or if it was more expensive (which it isn't) - then maybe I could follow what you're saying.

I'm genuinely curious about how people think - and I'm always interested in points of view that I don't understand. So, I was kinda hoping you had something rational that I could appreciate, regardless of my personal position.

That's how we learn.

That said, I don't see anything beyond an empty claim about exploiting customers by giving them a choice that there's absolutely no incentive to make UNLESS you actually want to gain early access to a beta for Doom 4.

If you just want Wolfenstein - there's no reason to buy now. You could wait for launch or a sale.

 

[SpoonFULL]

No, you've failed to rationalize it because it's not rational. That means there's no logic involved. Logic is one of the very few ways we have that can go beyond pure subjectivity.

Again, you are using your logic as a reference and failed (intentionally or otherwise) to see the logic in someone else's argument. That is fine and natural as people are different and forums are intended for such purpose.

Again, I am not referrering to peoples' choices for pre-order, but it is simple for one to ask themselves: Why a triple A developer/publisher did not release a demo of a single player shooter? but a beta instead?

The answer could be very simply because it is a multiplayer beta.

 

[DArtagnan]

Again, you are using your logic as a reference and failed (intentionally or otherwise) to see the logic in someone else's argument. That is fine and natural as people are different and forums are intended for such purpose.

Yeah, I've failed to see your logic - that's for sure

If you need to believe it's intentional, that's ok. Not much I can do about that.

Again, I am not referrering to peoples' choices for pre-order, but it is simple for one to ask themselves: Why a triple A developer/publisher did not release a demo of a single player shooter? but a beta instead?

Are you aware of the fact that it takes significant resources to develop a separate demo?

The answer could be very simply because it is a multiplayer beta.

Betas don't take extra resources to develop and they know people want early access to them - so they're releasing a beta to get people what they want and earn more profit.

Very, very simple.

Your multiplayer argument makes no sense at all.

 

[SpoonFULL]

Betas don't take extra resources to develop and they know people want early access to them - so they're releasing a beta to get people what they want and earn more profit.

Talking about going round in circles, but that was exactly my point which in my view is called exploitation as they could have released a demo.

Your multiplayer argument makes no sense at all.

To you maybe, but most betas nowadays are associated with multiplayer portions of games.

I also think that you should more often use 'in my view' or 'I think'. That's what the forums are for to share and not to force opinions.

 

[DArtagnan]

Talking about going round in circles, but that was exactly my point which in my view is called exploitation as they could have released a demo.

Yes, they could also have sent all players a few dollars - just because.

Demos are no longer common. That's sad, but you can't single out one publisher for not doing it. That's unreasonable. They're expensive to develop - and games are getting very, very high budget in the AAA segment. It's not something you do just because some people feel entitled.

Betas are usually more extensive than demos - and they give players a better look at what the final product will be.

Again, they're offering players access to the beta as an incentive - and no one is exploited or forced.

To you maybe, but most betas nowadays are associated with multiplayer portions of games.

Oh, you mean like Divinity, Wasteland 2, Blackguards, and so on?

I also think that you should more often use 'in my view' or 'I think'. That's what the forums are for to share and not to force opinions.

I think you should learn to distinguish between emotionally charged nonsense and an opinion that has rational support.

Looks like we don't get what we want this time

 

[SpoonFULL]

Yes, they could also have sent all players a few dollars - just because.

Demos are no longer common. That's sad, but you can't single out one publisher for not doing it. That's unreasonable. They're expensive to develop - and games are getting very, very high budget in the AAA segment. It's not something you do just because some people feel entitled.

Betas are usually more extensive than demos - and they give players a better look at what the final product will be.

Again, they're offering players access to the beta as an incentive - and no one is exploited or forced.

Again, I am not talking about peoples' choices here, which you seem to focus on for whatever reason.

Amazon and Game here in the UK increased their pre-orders for Wolfenstein by £5 (20% increase) after the Doom 4 beta announcement. That is exploitation in my view - higher pre-order prices for customers to pay to test a buggy beta.

Oh, you mean like Divinity, Wasteland 2, Blackguards, and so on?

These were mostly crowd funded and rpgs not shooters - so what is your point here?

I think you should learn to distinguish between emotionally charged nonsense and an opinion that has rational support.

Easy tiger, and well done for using 'I think' - we are getting somewhere after all.

 

[DArtagnan]

Again, I am not talking about peoples' choices here, which you seem to focus on for whatever reason.

Amazon and Game here in the UK increased their pre-orders for Wolfenstein by £5 (20% increase) after the Doom 4 beta announcement. That is exploitation in my view - higher pre-order prices for customers to pay to test a buggy beta.

That's the retailer - not the publisher or developer. You can preorder from many places, and I guarentee that you can find it quite cheap if you really want to.

Even so, if people didn't want to pay for beta access - they'd lose nothing at all by not doing it.

These were mostly crowd funded and rpgs not shooters - so what is your point here?

Your point was that multiplayer games are the only ones doing public beta tests. I explained how that's not the case.

Easy tiger, and well done for using 'I think' - we are getting somewhere after all.

Glad to be of service - now, can you give something in return, or is everything one-way only with you?

 

[SpoonFULL]

Glad to be of service - now, can you give something in return, or is everything one-way only with you?

Yes of course, I am open minded, but still dislike the ways that big coorporations use to exploit customers and make more profit without giving back.

I hope to be wrong in the case where Doom 4 is released at a reduced cost because of the cost saving made in the public beta test, but doubt this would happen. It is wrong in my opinion - but that is just me!

 

[DArtagnan]

Yes of course, I am open minded, but still dislike the ways that big coorporations use to exploit customers and make more profit without giving back.

I hope to be wrong in the case where Doom 4 is released at a reduced cost because of the cost saving made in the public beta test, but doubt this would happen. It is wrong in my opinion - but that is just me!

So, you think that because they're essentially giving people beta access, because they preorder the game with it as an added incentive, and they don't actually tell them they MUST beta test - they should also sell the game at a reduced cost?

I'm sorry, but your logic still escapes me completely.

But I think we've hogged the thread enough now.

 

[SpoonFULL]

That is my logic, and they have their own exploits otherwise they would have released a 'demo'.

Enough of my grumbles.

 

[JDR13]

So... what did you guys think of the trailer?