If it's playable? I mean if you release it too soon then people will play it too much when it's crappy and forget about it basically because they're tired of it or something. Right?
So should I put A Game of Kings up for download? I've been getting alot of people asking me to do it but I'm afraid people are going to be critics and talk crap about it since it's still in alpha and not NEARLY finished...
would liek some input
ID:274466
 Mar 12 2002, 7:57 pm
|
|
|
Mar 12 2002, 8:04 pm
|
|
Foomer
 |
Don't release it until it's worth playing...
|
I'd say don't give in to pressure to release the game until it's done. But if you feel you need multiplayer testing before that, host it yourself every once in a while.
Z | |
Nobody else can tell you when a game's "ready" for release. If you release a buggy or unfinished version now... twenty versions down the line, when you have your polished-and-professional version out, you'll still be haunted by that old version. People who never bothered to update will continually send you bug reports and feature requests that are long since obsolete.
| |
Many of my games are in states where someone could log in and be amazed with what is there. However, such a large portion of each of my games would be currently unavailable to players by self-imposed debugging restrictions and simple lack of inclusion in the compiled version that potential players would be quickly turned away from it.
I'll use an analogy. You need to decide whether you want to give dogs the little crumbs from the nearly empty bag of treats, or whether you want them to wait for a whole treat as you go to the store and buy a bag. =) Basically, my point is that if you give the gamers crumbs, they'll be satisfied in the moment -- but they're just crumbs, and they don't last long. However, if you spend the time to get the whole kit and caboodle, they'll get whole treats, and there'll be a lot of them. ...Oh, by the way, I don't think of players as dogs. That's why it's just an analogy. ;-) | |