2016 payware upgrade?

[Ssnake]

I suppose you can help the community most in the coming months leading up to the version 4.0 release. Typically a new major release also attracts new players, so spreading the word always helps.

[Deputy276]

On 3/18/2016 at 0:45 AM, Ssnake said:

No decision has been made yet. But I think it will be similar to the last one. After all, it's been since 2013 that we released the last.
 

I wasn't around for the last one. Can you give me a rough idea on price of the update?  

[Rotareneg]

The last one was 40 USD.

[Deputy276]

41 minutes ago, Rotareneg said:

The last one was 40 USD.

Thank you 

[daskal]

Will there be any "drastically" changes to system requirements? (apart from 32 bit platform no longer supported) 

[Ssnake]

To an extent it's too early to say because we haven't started the beta test yet which would give us more data points from a wider hardware base. However, a few basic remarks can already be made:

 

Steel Beasts Pro will remain a largely CPU limited software, and while we can leverage multiple CPU cores in some situations, it will remain largely a single-threaded application.

Having the CPU as the bottleneck allows us to increase GPU load without having to pay much of a penalty WRT frame rate. But I don't want to create the impression that more visual splendor is virtually "for free". We definitely recommend 8GByte RAM, certain operations will profit from multiple cores (typically when loading a scenario for the first time where we have to preprocess some data). The road leveling will take a considerable amount of CPU time, but again, this is done before you play, so the frame rate penalty won't be high.

 

The more substantial changes are with respect to file sizes; they go up. Certain new features will make it impossible to keep maps embedded in scenario files. This means that multiplayer games will need to be set up with more care, making sure that the players not only have the scenario file but also the corresponding map files. As these map files can potentially become VERY large, we think that the best course of action is to strip the map data from the scenario files, and then have the user generate them on his local machine. So, this requires extra preparation time which will probably preclude the participation of late-comers/unprepared players that stumble into a session at the last minute.

 

Our goal is to convert all the stock maps and all the stock scenarios with which Steel Beasts is shipped, so that scenarios based on these standard maps should be reasonably easy in their handling. Only when it comes to custom maps will the differences in file handling become a relevant issue.

[kraze]

I've noticed that the price for perma-license has went down to $85 - does it mean 4.0 will cost $30 and is it the final discount for 3.0? Or prices may change?

[Ssnake]

1. It does not mean that the upgrade fee for version 4.0 will be $30.-
2. Yes, this is the final discount for 3.0

I will go into details later, once that we have made decisions about a number of related issues, so I can summarize everything in a single announcement.

[Haferja]

In the past few years the gaming industry tend to release early access, alpha and beta-versions of their games before finalizing their products. A procedure we know from microsoft (the user is the tester ;-)

 

I could live with it, dear Ssnake, if we could buy a "beta" before release. ;-) So you get a bigger tester community for bugfixing. But i know it has to fit into your philosophy.

 

Maybe i just cant wait any more ;-))

 

Cheers!!

Edited April 3, 2016 by Haferja

[Ssnake]

Our experiences with the "open beta" between 3.011 and 3.027 shows that more beta testers do not necessarily mean better feedback. Very few people actually take the time to test things systematically, and to write us back in a way that is actually useful for the programmers to identify a problem. That's not to say that it's a useless concept, it just doesn't apply to every case.

[JustSomeGuy]

I happen to make my living as a tester and think I could explain that: if you donť have Functional Specifications (or are not in the trade of Test Driven Development), you have very little idea what to test and how. And as a "Beta-tester", you don't have these.

 

Therefore, you could only "stumble upon a bug" by chance.

 

Beta-testing thus makes sense in two scenarios:

1) if you have millions of users (because million times miniscule chance of stepping onto a bug -> few discovered bugs)

2) if the team needs to make sure that the product they wrote actually works the way end users want it to

[Gibsonm]

11 hours ago, Haferja said:

In the past few years the gaming industry tend to release early access, alpha and beta-versions of their games before finalizing their products. A procedure we know from microsoft (the user is the tester ;-)

 

Personally I think that due to reduced attention spans and the inability to wait.

 

Early access *

Closed Alpha *

Open Alpha *

Closed Beta *

Open Beta *

Actual release

Bug fix update

 

Is just a way (IMHO) to appear to be making progress and to satisfy the "are we there yet" generation.

 

I suspect all it does for smaller firms is to insert several more levels of admin (managing the ones with * above), instead of just focusing on getting the thing finished and out the door.

[Marko]

1 hour ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Personally I think that due to reduced attention spans and the inability to wait.

 

Early access *

Closed Alpha *

Open Alpha *

Closed Beta *

Open Beta *

Actual release

Bug fix update

 

Is just a way (IMHO) to appear to be making progress and to satisfy the "are we there yet" generation.

 

I suspect all it does for smaller firms is to insert several more levels of admin (managing the ones with * above), instead of just focusing on getting the thing finished and out the door.

This must be a first but I agree with Gibsonm. LoL

Not to just get my hands on the update quicker would not have the free time to enjoy it at the moment

Probably wont buy it to the official release anyway

but I do think I would speed up the whole release process

[Marko]

Just now, Marko said:

This must be a first but I agree with Gibsonm. LoL

Not to just get my hands on the update quicker would not have the free time to enjoy it at the moment

Probably wont buy it to the official release anyway

but I do think I would speed up the whole release process

and possible generate more inters from potential buyers especially if the early access was a free month freebee.

They use a similar sale promotion over on the DCS forum.

 

[jimcarrel]

Just my personal opinion, but beta releases have never really done a thing for community posting atmosphere, this community (I don't think) would advance it's cause with a beta release.

 

Summary: Beta release= can of worms.

[Deputy276]

2 hours ago, jimcarrel said:

Just my personal opinion, but beta releases have never really done a thing for community posting atmosphere, this community (I don't think) would advance it's cause with a beta release.

 

Summary: Beta release= can of worms.

Have to agree with this. Based on what is going on at Armored Warfare, beta testing for consumers isn't worth it. Not saying you would have the "please nerf and buff" problems here. But it's possible. Plus people tend to get real frustrated when fixes aren't done in favor of other options. Again....not saying the same thing would happen here. Just MHO it's not a very efficient method. 

[Ssnake]

Well, it can be useful, e.g. if you're replacing an old function where you want to verify that the new one doesn't break anything, and you just need a large number of people to try it out. So, it has it's place. The downside of a public beta is that it binds a lot of team resources since you need to monitor the feedback, and possibly render a lot more technical support than usual, so the (largely invisible) price to pay for this is all the work that doesn't get done during the public beta phase.

[Holman]

Hello!

 

Returning wannabe user here.  I've owned the game in the past (I sold my old license), and now I find my interest in armor rekindled.

 

Is there any downside to buying 3.0 now and updating the license to 4.0 when it comes out?  My computer is already 64-bit and already 8GB RAM, but are there other hardware issues I should think about?

 

Will the price difference (3.0-then-4.0-upgrade vs. fresh 4.0 license) be dramatic?

[Gibsonm]

Well I'm not the guy who runs the store but a pretty good rule of thumb from past experience is:

 

Discounted current copy + Upgrade cost is pretty much the same as buying new product.

 

Plus you get to use it now, rather than potentially save a few $, but have to go without while you wait.

 

As always only you can weigh these options and make a decision.

[Ssnake]

Yes:

 

The discounted copy of 3.0 + upgrade fee = price of 4.0 base license at release date.

[Holman]

Thanks!