Testing WITE

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz


And comparing a board game to a computer game is like comparing apples and toasters.

Except they get patches too. AKA errata.

[Joel Billings]

We feel the game is playable out of the box and very enjoyable. The campaign was balanced as best we could given that a tester 2 player campaign game would take weeks/months and the game was constantly changing during development. We think the smaller scenarios are enjoyable and balanced (they were easier to balance given we could actually play a game in a reasonable amount of time). As for the campaign, all we can say is that we will continue to gather information and make changes that seem appropriate to improve the game. we could have waited another year and the game might have been a little better, but realistically the only way to speed things up was to get the game out to more players. We also could not afford to develop the game for another year without revenue, and as I stated, the game is very playable out of the box as version 1.0.

I owned DNO but was never a big fan. I was a big fan of the boardgame War in the East, but I also spent 4 months playing a 5 player team game only to find that errata had been published after release that added a rule that drastically impacted soviet production. We played for 4 months with the Soviets dug in by 1942 and unmovable, only to find that had we known about the errata things would have been very different. Now some might say we wasted 4 months. On the other hand, we had a great time playing the game. Prior to my playing the team game, I had spent one entire summer playing the game solitaire and had a great time. I wish we had had a system then to let us know about errata like we have now for patching games. If I wasn't a subscriber to Moves magazine I would have never known about the critical errata.

I don't know Matrix's return policy, but if it was up to me I'd happily give you your money back if you are not happy with the game. I've produced over 100 games and feel it's in the top 1/3 in being playable out of the box, but we want satisfied customers. What I see is a game that was good at release and is getting better with each patch. I'm sorry you're not happy with your purchase.

[Pipewrench]

thanks Joel,

you words are well put and appreciated.

[sitito]

We feel the game is playable out of the box and very enjoyable. The campaign was balanced as best we could given that a tester 2 player campaign game would take weeks/months and the game was constantly changing during development. We think the smaller scenarios are enjoyable and balanced (they were easier to balance given we could actually play a game in a reasonable amount of time). As for the campaign, all we can say is that we will continue to gather information and make changes that seem appropriate to improve the game. we could have waited another year and the game might have been a little better, but realistically the only way to speed things up was to get the game out to more players. We also could not afford to develop the game for another year without revenue, and as I stated, the game is very playable out of the box as version 1.0.
I owned DNO but was never a big fan. I was a big fan of the boardgame War in the East, but I also spent 4 months playing a 5 player team game only to find that errata had been published after release that added a rule that drastically impacted soviet production. We played for 4 months with the Soviets dug in by 1942 and unmovable, only to find that had we known about the errata things would have been very different. Now some might say we wasted 4 months. On the other hand, we had a great time playing the game. Prior to my playing the team game, I had spent one entire summer playing the game solitaire and had a great time. I wish we had had a system then to let us know about errata like we have now for patching games. If I wasn't a subscriber to Moves magazine I would have never known about the critical errata.
I don't know Matrix's return policy, but if it was up to me I'd happily give you your money back if you are not happy with the game. I've produced over 100 games and feel it's in the top 1/3 in being playable out of the box, but we want satisfied customers. What I see is a game that was good at release and is getting better with each patch. I'm sorry you're not happy with your purchase.

AMEN

I don't know how much money my dads spent on my education. But a lot. Unfortunately i need about 1000 patches only in maths and physics .... That's life.... but hey, you have good ideas. Demands on the way: i want my money back. And btw what u think about life??? How could God let us die without respawn????? [:-] ... Incredible. What a crap bunch of beta testers used....Pffff. Calling my lawyer ... He will be very busy next year ....[:D].........

Anyway, we all know that the game still need some balance work. Lets have patience and let the experts work in this amazing game.....

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

I have posted these comments on a number of threads and, probably quite rightly it has been suggested I should start a new place of discussion.

"I bought this game on the day it was released and I think it has many things going for it. What I did not realise when I paid my £70 was that I was not buying a finished product. So far I have had to download six patches and still I read that the "game will only be balanced" "possibly in a year" when enough people play it who can point out its faults.

35 years ago my first wargame, bought as a present for my fifteenth birthday, was "Drang nach Osten" by GDW. In real terms it probably cost in 1974 more than WITE today but worked "straight out of the box" and is still playable today without amy major modifications.

When I bought WITE I wish someone had written on the Matrix website that "this game will be great when you all find what is wrong with it now".

One of the problems when you are comparing the situation now to that existing 35 years ago is precisely that the world has changed, and you cannot extrapolate things that easily. 35 years ago there were no personal computers, and, most importantly, there was no Internet. Although not explicitly stated (as far as I know), this game has in mind that Internet exists. In the manual there are sections about how to register, how to update, how to visit the forums. I do not know if it is even possible to go to a shop and buy this product. The existence of the Internet obviously may change the business model. Developers feel that is not as critical as before to make a completely bug-free product (that, anyhow, would be impossible), and can pursue to create a more ambitious project (made possible due to better technology), knowing before release that there is not the real possibility of fully testing all the depth of the game.

In the Darwinian world of PC game industry, you could conceivably have 2 opposite models:

Company A tries to make “perfect” products on release. Therefore their products are not risky, tend to be of low complexity, with simple rules, etc. Therefore they can release their “finished and perfect” products after a reasonable time of development

Company B tries to make ambitious and risky projects, where each weapon counts, where leaders have not a single rating, but 8, some of them dynamic depending on battle performance, etc knowing that any potential flaw after release would be detected by the users, and can be corrected via the Internet. Therefore they can release their products after a reasonable time of development. (But obviously, they cannot allow themselves to produce crap, because that same Internet community would destroy them)

In the ecological niche of PC wargaming, which model do you think is going to succeed? And, which model do you prefer?

[Commanderski]

The game was very playable when first released and just keeps getting better. Customer and tech support are just outstanding! Keep up the great work!

[PeeDeeAitch]

I am a bit mad that War in the East is not playable at work.  That had nothing to do with the software and everything to do my employer, but I think that 2by3 needs to look into this issue.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

I am a bit mad that War in the East is not playable at work.  That had nothing to do with the software and everything to do my employer, but I think that 2by3 needs to look into this issue.

Warspite1

Are these guys in the dark ages or what? I think your employers are being entirely unreasonable. Surely you can claim compensation or something?

[raizer]

I find it hard to believe that the game took years to develop and yet not one tester had/has played a pbem GC campaign to completion 

[cookie monster]

ORIGINAL: raizer

I find it hard to believe that the game took years to develop and yet not one tester had/has played a pbem GC campaign to completion 

They kept on updating the AI and other routines. Look at the AAR section most initial AAR's had to be restarted cos of TOE experience hit etc.

BTW a GC PBEM is quite an undertaking. How many turns is it? Even at a turn a day it would take months.

[bairdlander2]

They didnt start testing untill last year.The testers couldnt get through a GC as there were constant changes,the smaller scenarios run much better as there was time to run them to completion.I also would like to know the definition of "unplayable".The same was said about HOI3 when released and it was "unbalanced" and not very historical but "unplayable"?No.To me unplayable means the game will not run,ctd's,major graphic glitches etc etc.WitE was not "unplayable" on release and neither was HOI3.

[bairdlander2]

225 turns assuming approx 30 days in a month,GC would take with 1 turn per day 7.5 months.

[Angelo]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I don't know Matrix's return policy, but if it was up to me I'd happily give you your money back if you are not happy with the game. I've produced over 100 games and feel it's in the top 1/3 in being playable out of the box, but we want satisfied customers. What I see is a game that was good at release and is getting better with each patch. I'm sorry you're not happy with your purchase.

Thank you for your honest feelings, it is appreciated.

However, there are severe short comings with the game especially the grand campaigns and the lack of play testing is very evident.

I would have gladly paid twice as much for a high quality russian front game. So, if you can produce one i'll buy it. But until then it's only use is as a sand box game.

[cookie monster]

ORIGINAL: Angelo

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I don't know Matrix's return policy, but if it was up to me I'd happily give you your money back if you are not happy with the game. I've produced over 100 games and feel it's in the top 1/3 in being playable out of the box, but we want satisfied customers. What I see is a game that was good at release and is getting better with each patch. I'm sorry you're not happy with your purchase.

Thank you for your honest feelings, it is appreciated.

However, there are severe short comings with the game especially the grand campaigns and the lack of play testing is very evident.

I would have gladly paid twice as much for a high quality russian front game. So, if you can produce one i'll buy it. But until then it's only use is as a sand box game.

Spill the beans. What are the severe short comings of the game?

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

ORIGINAL: Angelo

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I don't know Matrix's return policy, but if it was up to me I'd happily give you your money back if you are not happy with the game. I've produced over 100 games and feel it's in the top 1/3 in being playable out of the box, but we want satisfied customers. What I see is a game that was good at release and is getting better with each patch. I'm sorry you're not happy with your purchase.

Thank you for your honest feelings, it is appreciated.

However, there are severe short comings with the game especially the grand campaigns and the lack of play testing is very evident.

I would have gladly paid twice as much for a high quality russian front game. So, if you can produce one i'll buy it. But until then it's only use is as a sand box game.

Spill the beans. What are the severe short comings of the game?

Panzers don't act like rolling Death Stars....

Russian player refuses to throw their armies away......

[cookie monster]

Russian player refuses to throw their armies away......

You would think that but...

How the hell, can I find those salient pictures to put on the witewiki in defensive techniques

I thought it was mission impossible

Even my mom woulda retreated from those salients

Soz Mom no disrespect....

[SgtKachalin]

As someone who actually played Drang nach Osten / Unentschieden I can say unequivocally that you're wrong. Proof? The fact we also played Fire in the East / Scortched Earth. If the first “worked out of the box” and needed nothing more, then FitE / SE would have never seen the light of day.

Anyway, to the meat of the OP's point:

...think it wrong for a company to sell a game, for a pretty hefty price, and then expect us, "the players", to make it right on a forum.

Can't agree because 1) by any objective measure the game works just fine out of the box – the fact you (and many others), don't agree with the implementation of some aspect of it doesn't mean it is not “right”. That's part and parcel of all games – some you like the way the designer/devs have done their job, some you don't. But because it works just fine, legally and ethically they've done their job. 2) Everyone knows pc games are a different product – you obviously know it, though you seem to be pretending otherwise. It's unique in the complexity of product and the ease and speed with which changes can be made. The evolution of the industry over the past decade is that it is normal and expected that pc games will have changes made to make them better. Arguably the more succesfull the game the MORE changes are made – they're called releases / versions / whatever – with many of those changes not based on anything the developers think but on massive input from the folks who bought and play it.

Given both of the above there's nothing “wrong” with the way WitE has been put out. So far with the speed that feedback is being taken and pursued I think they're actually doing better than many if not most.

[Senno]

Well, after posting in the middle of the night, the OP hasn't been back since late last night. And he's had his official response by Joel at a nice early morning time according to the timestamp. And his complaints have been roundly torn apart and dismissed. So I suppose we can all consider this matter closed. [:D]

[Aurelian]

Good. I was this close ><, to removing the game from the computer and taking it off the DVD.. [;)]

[raizer]

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

ORIGINAL: raizer

I find it hard to believe that the game took years to develop and yet not one tester had/has played a pbem GC campaign to completion 

They kept on updating the AI and other routines. Look at the AAR section most initial AAR's had to be restarted cos of TOE experience hit etc.

BTW a GC PBEM is quite an undertaking. How many turns is it? Even at a turn a day it would take months.

I like the game and didnt say this was a problem, just saying that Im suprised no one has ever finished the once scenario that everyone wants to play