SOE did this with Planetside.
The original Planetside was a good idea, but was a bit pants. What they did was re-design the game as ‘Planetside 2’
Planetside 2 wasn’t a sequel, but a re-imagining of a mediocre game. I know, the name isn’t really different, but it brought new life to the game.
Considering that I spent money I got in a csgo drop on the game (literally $350) I’m not too mad about there not being a “excess” amount of updates. But, (I do understand that making a game takes time), I would have a different outlook if I dropped $35 dollars that I worked off at my job, id be more of less pissed.
2 Likes
Hi everyone,
I would like to say my opinion, in a peacefull environment (hi Zouls :D).
The game expectations were fantastic when it showed. When I saw the prices on steam the first time impressed me, but I understand it because all they promise was amazing. It looked like the Game of the year. Now, seeing game development, prices seems high and development is slower than planned.
I understand the reviews, but does not mean I share them. As an interested future player, I would like to get this game on the top, but not this way will you ever get. I have read a lot of reviews (negatives and positives) and there is a patron: prices too high and development too slow.
To be honest the price is not the problem, but the slow development. I know how dificult is develop a game, because I working in the industry. And an important point I learned is: Don’t make promises you can’t keep. I am not questioning the skills of programmers, I am talking about dates. It’s been 10 months since leaving in steam and is still in pre-alpha. And you planing launch fully late 2015… I don’t know, but you have a lot of work this months.
1 Like
They said that they had to move it to 2016, most of us said from the start that oort was a rather ambitious project and i personally would rather see the game stay in early access longer and come out great than launch rushed with missing features.
Personally i can understand the people who complain about slow developement, however one thing i dont understand are people who say ‘‘but you promised this would be at launch, so why isnt it now!’’ like… yeah if they promised something for launch that doesnt mean that it should be there now, but that it should be there at launch hopefully those will be pleased later on once the stuff comes 
A huge update will roll out soon, you should check it out then and see if that is enough for tipping you over the edge 
1 Like
I understand you. But I’m scared about that early access games that stay in early access years (like DayZ for example). It doesn’t matter if devs delay oort online six months or a little more. The problem I have seen these years is that many early access games have stopped in their development, or they just leave the game unfinished.
2 Likes
True, it is always a chance, and the devs realize that there is always a chance for failure.
my opinion on early access games have always been ‘‘dont pay more than you can afford to lose’’
I think it is worth noting that this game is a young genre, new engine and massively more complex than what most people see on the surface. Underestimating the developement time is understandable imo. Unlike many games that are made in pre-existing engines and tweeked to fit, Oort is being made from the ground up with systems and mechanics that have never been tried before.
1 Like
Whilst it would be awesome if we’d done more than we have to this point, we’ll always rather take our time and make a great game, rather than rushing and make an average one.
When the next big release is out I’m sure we’ll be able to talk more about our process and provide some more context about the previous 12 months and the next 12 months.
5 Likes
It’s also worth noting that the players pressed the dev team to put Oort on Steam.
So saying it’s been in early access for 10 months on Steam isn’t really relevant.
1 Like
I also dislike games that are at EA for a very long and not overseeable range of time (DayZ is quite the best example, yeah ^^), but if a release date is not uptodate anymore it may be moved, as long as there are good causes and transparent communication with the users. Big companies do the same (most times without the transparancy) but with no EA models for their games, so we just don’t draw the connection. … For example: Look at Blizzard or Peter Molineux’ games. I cannot count the years I have waited for Diablo 2 or Black and Wihte ^^ … But with Wonderstruck’s behavior on handling with us through the forum and other channels I feel no trouble in communications or transparancy 
4 Likes
I, for one, applaud Wonderstruck for the model they’ve adopted with Oort Online. I’m a software developer for a multi-billion dollar global enterprise (we’re a computer manufacturer whose name starts with “D”… er, okay it rhymes with HELL… oh geeze, I’ve said too much). Anyway, our projects start with a concrete date, a date that cannot be missed. It’s up to the team to complete at least an application’s core functionaltiy to be delivered by that time. This results in either a “Deathmarch” (where most engineers realize the team’s goals can not be realized) or “Super Heroism” (where key team members work almost 24/7 to bring the product in on time). I don’t think this is an optimal process.
I can only assume that the Oort Online project started with a creative idea that would push the limits of the voxel game genre. They started with a clear definition of what they want to release for 1.0, calculated about how long that would take to build with the resources they had available and came up with a rough estimate for launch. I’m assuming they’re using an Agile development approach which, as a process, favors having production-ready code at the end of each development cycle. However, @ben is right, releasing mediocrity can KILL a project by tainting public perception.
What I love about the game so far is the polish, the fit and finish. The game has never crashed for me. The lag (with unoptimized networking code) is minimal most of the time. The art assets are wickedly creative, consistent and engaging. These developers just keep going and going and going…
I paid $50 to be a part of this process with a pipeline directly to the development team’s ears. Love this process.
4 Likes
That’s really encouraging @bigPharma, and thanks for the kind words
3 Likes
Trust in the japanese!
6 Likes
And here I thought you worked for a big pharmaceuticals company…weird, no idea where I got that idea from
2 Likes
Hey, I’m with @bigPharma; I’m a software engineer and architect with a Fortune 400 corporation with a three-letter name. (Which one? Well, I can tell you who it isn’t–there’s no ‘I’ in “team,” remember?) Anyway, I agree that this is a far better methodology than the one I see employed by so many corporations who are supposed to know better. We let the product owner determine the feature set, and the engineering team determines when it can be delivered based on their agile velocity. We’re not seeing the result of every sprint, and that’s okay.
Miyamoto-san is correct. An on-time delivery with defects is still late. (That’s not what he said–that’s my corollary.)
I “invested” with my eyes open, and I see no cause for concern.
4 Likes
Much love to you all, we’re making this game for you and it’s great that you’re supportive.
8 Likes