Anyone with common sense knows that perception of what's good and what's bad are subjective.
It's so funny how you try to put yourself/your strata as a golden standard
Now you're reaching. I'm talking about a bad game (bad gameplay, bad story etc...) and a good game (good gameplay, good story etc...). Now of course you will always find people that like a game no matter how bad it is, but that's not what I'm talking about here.
So tell me again, do you think people rather play an original bad game or a good one but coming from a know IP. It's a simple question that demand a simple answer: yes or no.
Go re-read what alpha is and when it's end and what's next stage (beta) is about. Maybe you'll sprout less non-sense based on one sentence related to ~start~ of the phase that you still can't get.
I know it'll be hard for you, but how game, like Arc, can have follow-up alpha if it's only a 'first playable build", changes always means a new build
As I said , this state has lost all it's meaning. Arc being in alpha last week is just as stupid. Beta is more adapted.
It's tiresome, I keep repeating myself and yet you don't understand.
There is no common sense in it, just YOUR belief that it's a common sense, that simple hide this particular fact:
And what I learned over long years in online games is that hardcore crowd do not know and do not care about wishes of casuals and behave as they are only strata in the game.
There is no common sense in saying that the vast majority of players rather play a good game than a bad one?? What do you want me to say when you spout out such nonsense.
And now you try to spin the narrative by saying "b...b...but everything is subjective!".
You just have no idea how many stages there are and how long each of them. Obviously zero experience in software development.
Those alpha-beta are consumer delivery stages, go look at waterfall and you'll see that there a huge amount of work before actual coding even starts. And all actual delivery stage (alpha and beyond) combined just *tiny* fraction compared to so-called "pre-alpha".
Nobody know how long it is because it can vary from a studio to another and many, MANY other factor. There is no absolute response. What we can say is that a game 6 months before release is not in alpha unless it's in terrible shape. And we know they reached alpha a long time ago because of the information we can recoup.
Again we are getting off topic. But no, alpha, beta etc... are not consumer delivery stages, at least it was not intended to. But somehow around 2010 studios started to release demo for multiplayer games a week before the release with the tag "beta" because that would serve as an excuse on why the game is struggling to run, server problem etc etc...
And now they tag with alpha when it's just a few months before the release, confusing people like you that think they know better.
And here we go again. He took a number, put some label on it and went flaunting and aggro people. And got banned for misrepresentation of data because it is what it is.
Still it doesn't make this numbers less proof that gaas is taking a lead. It's just position that lack substance (rational explanation that can be verified) is weak by default and if it's used to taunt people - it is a reason to ban.
Me: he got banned for misleading information.
You: no, it's because "taunting based on something he himself can't explain/argue properly"
Me: read the reason. The reason: "
Misrepresenting data to suit your weird agenda"
You: He got banned for misrepresentation of data!
Dude wtf are you doing....
Of course there is nothing. You just weak at math and strong in "common sense", and it clearly shows.
As I said it's not the topic, and you already have a hard time being consistent with Marathon so let's keep it there.