Hi, i'm new and i am here for Humankind!

i think, it will be announced tonight in during E3.

CCNL wrote:

Hi, i'm new and i am here for Humankind!

i think, it will be announced tonight in during E3.

That is what I have found looking on the forums here aswell, but not everybody will look here just because they saw the trailer. I for one don't care about E3 and they should not slack off on their own channels of communication because of the E3 announcement. All I am arguing for is to make it clear that the starting date of the date will be announced on their E3 panel (if our info here is correct).

There's this new tweet. In my opinion it is a good hype operation: I'am pawing from yesterday!

hello everyone, it's coming ... let's be patient. regards!!

maxpower80 wrote:

hello everyone, it's coming ... let's be patient. regards!!

Patience is for the dead. LOL

I try to be a patient person. That being said, I really want to play this game! It was a bit of a downer to see the teaser, and not have any other info out there. I am sure the details will be released soon, but I agree that this take on releasing that info might not have been the best way to do it. I look forward to enjoying the game when I can get to playing it.

I'm firmly in the "oh cool an open beta!" - checks steam, checks here, can't find a single piece of information on the open beta - "well F you then".

As someone who avoids social media in general, doesn't give a shit about E3, and watched the video on mobile where you can't even see the description without trying, It literally just sounds like lying. The marketing people need to assume that that trailer is the ONLY thing people are going to see. If I was any less invested I would be refunding my pre-purchase right now. Big fuck up from the marketing department here.

Well technically the only mentioning of the beta outside of the title is on the last slide of the video. But it doesn't say access it now, it only says that by pre-purchasing you can access. Sure maybe they could write it more clearly for some people, but I don't think the problem is with their communication, but with people jumping to conclusions based on little information instead of first getting more information. If you want to get excited about playing the closed beta you can, but it's also on you that you get disappointted, releasing such trailers before the product is actually available happens all the time.

Akaelnyl wrote:

Well technically the only mentioning of the beta outside of the title is on the last slide of the video. But it doesn't say access it now, it only says that by pre-purchasing you can access. Sure maybe they could write it more clearly for some people, but I don't think the problem is with their communication, but with people jumping to conclusions based on little information instead of first getting more information. If you want to get excited about playing the closed beta you can, but it's also on you that you get disappointted, releasing such trailers before the product is actually available happens all the time.

well technically you are right, there is no obligation for them to clarify the specifics about the beta to their customers in the trailer. As I have argued it is still within their interest to do so, because even if people inform themselves before just jumping ahead to prepurchase, it still leaves at least some of them frustrated (as underlined by some others who have posted in this thread) and dampens the hype build by the trailer. Even though the purpose of that trailer is to build hype.

I do understand your frustration but have to agree with others on the forums here who point out this is not exactly unusual for a game company. Furthermore, game companies are often the kings of deceptive practices as gamers are prone to falling for them. Sure, it angers them but never so much to make enough people ask for reimbursement that it makes them change their ways. On top of that, Sega may be even more prone to using these tactics just take a look at the DLC regime they've built with CA for the Total War line...you pay for blood there. Literally.

Hi, I'm new as well ^^

Honestly, I am also a Paradox gamer, and I can assure you that deception and teasing aren't so uncommon.

From what I've seen since now, Humankind and Amplitude studio in general are slowly cooking the game, taking time for refine and make a savory game.

Now I talk as the "random gamer": I already had some nibbles for judge. 

• This game is called the "Civ 6 killer". This put me (and will put all the present and future clients) in the order of ideas to compare Civ 6 and humankind. I'm a quite of fan of Civ 6 so I approached Humankind with this expectation, to find a game that challenges Civ 6.
• I then watched gameplays. I immediately found some differences between the two games and some similarities. I am not a fine judge about 4x but I found the nick very appropriate. Civ 6 was a bit of "table top game" and, although this isn't a buzz kill, it kind of kills the competition. Sometimes decisions are made by the "steps" you want to take: I often built a Wonder instead of another because I needed to reach a certain cap of food/gold/production, this even if I wanted to build another building  for "harmonic" purposes (I need a prophet? I'll build the Mahabodhi wonder, although I was trying to use only European architecture). Also leaders and nations counted only for their "lore" and some bonus sprinkled in it. I won diplomatically with Catherine de' Medici, to say, but I could have as well won it with Pericles or Saladin, and Catherine could have mothered the Scientific or Religious victory. Victory was something that you chose at the start of the game, you worked through it and it was just a combo of ability and set difficulty. I didn't see this in Humankind: victory is defined by a number. However you reach the point is up to you. This makes the strategy much more personal and free: Do I wanna build the Colosseum instead of the Colossus? I just have to keep in mind that will make a certain bonus, which I will balance with some appropriate game choices. There's not a better/worst difference, but a strategy difference.
• I then decided to took the preorder. I paid for it...and nope, there wasn't. I didn't get angry though, both because I can always ask for a refund if I don't like the game and because if anything I could join the closed dev, which is something I know that was possible (thanks to GamerZakh) and I, strong from the previous analysis, was proud to take part to this activity. 

LoopBank wrote:

Hi, I'm new as well ^^

Honestly, I am also a Paradox gamer, and I can assure you that deception and teasing aren't so uncommon.

From what I've seen since now, Humankind and Amplitude studio in general are slowly cooking the game, taking time for refine and make a savory game.

Now I talk as the "random gamer": I already had some nibbles for judge. 

• This game is called the "Civ 6 killer". This put me (and will put all the present and future clients) in the order of ideas to compare Civ 6 and humankind. I'm a quite of fan of Civ 6 so I approached Humankind with this expectation, to find a game that challenges Civ 6.
• I then watched gameplays. I immediately found some differences between the two games and some similarities. I am not a fine judge about 4x but I found the nick very appropriate. Civ 6 was a bit of "table top game" and, although this isn't a buzz kill, it kind of kills the competition. Sometimes decisions are made by the "steps" you want to take: I often built a Wonder instead of another because I needed to reach a certain cap of food/gold/production, this even if I wanted to build another building  for "harmonic" purposes (I need a prophet? I'll build the Mahabodhi wonder, although I was trying to use only European architecture). Also leaders and nations counted only for their "lore" and some bonus sprinkled in it. I won diplomatically with Catherine de' Medici, to say, but I could have as well won it with Pericles or Saladin, and Catherine could have mothered the Scientific or Religious victory. Victory was something that you chose at the start of the game, you worked through it and it was just a combo of ability and set difficulty. I didn't see this in Humankind: victory is defined by a number. However you reach the point is up to you. This makes the strategy much more personal and free: Do I wanna build the Colosseum instead of the Colossus? I just have to keep in mind that will make a certain bonus, which I will balance with some appropriate game choices. There's not a better/worst difference, but a strategy difference.
• I then decided to took the preorder. I paid for it...and nope, there wasn't. I didn't get angry though, both because I can always ask for a refund if I don't like the game and because if anything I could join the closed dev, which is something I know that was possible (thanks to GamerZakh) and I, strong from the previous analysis, was proud to take part to this activity. 

I don't feel betrayed because I paid for the preorder so the beta version which I can access to is a plus, is something more I can have. 

I would invite you to read my initial post again. I never assumed a position to speak for "all the gamers", nor did I argue for some "majority of the people are upset"

to quote myself: "There are more standpoints to view this from, but these, i think, are the ones with negative impact on marketing/business that are relevant."  (relevant to business decisions)

If you took no issue in this that is great, but it does not address the issues I have raised.

The closed beta is now available.

Bon Appetit!!! 

Ahlpha wrote:

LoopBank wrote:

Hi, I'm new as well ^^

Honestly, I am also a Paradox gamer, and I can assure you that deception and teasing aren't so uncommon.

From what I've seen since now, Humankind and Amplitude studio in general are slowly cooking the game, taking time for refine and make a savory game.

Now I talk as the "random gamer": I already had some nibbles for judge. 

• This game is called the "Civ 6 killer". This put me (and will put all the present and future clients) in the order of ideas to compare Civ 6 and humankind. I'm a quite of fan of Civ 6 so I approached Humankind with this expectation, to find a game that challenges Civ 6.
• I then watched gameplays. I immediately found some differences between the two games and some similarities. I am not a fine judge about 4x but I found the nick very appropriate. Civ 6 was a bit of "table top game" and, although this isn't a buzz kill, it kind of kills the competition. Sometimes decisions are made by the "steps" you want to take: I often built a Wonder instead of another because I needed to reach a certain cap of food/gold/production, this even if I wanted to build another building  for "harmonic" purposes (I need a prophet? I'll build the Mahabodhi wonder, although I was trying to use only European architecture). Also leaders and nations counted only for their "lore" and some bonus sprinkled in it. I won diplomatically with Catherine de' Medici, to say, but I could have as well won it with Pericles or Saladin, and Catherine could have mothered the Scientific or Religious victory. Victory was something that you chose at the start of the game, you worked through it and it was just a combo of ability and set difficulty. I didn't see this in Humankind: victory is defined by a number. However you reach the point is up to you. This makes the strategy much more personal and free: Do I wanna build the Colosseum instead of the Colossus? I just have to keep in mind that will make a certain bonus, which I will balance with some appropriate game choices. There's not a better/worst difference, but a strategy difference.
• I then decided to took the preorder. I paid for it...and nope, there wasn't. I didn't get angry though, both because I can always ask for a refund if I don't like the game and because if anything I could join the closed dev, which is something I know that was possible (thanks to GamerZakh) and I, strong from the previous analysis, was proud to take part to this activity. 

I don't feel betrayed because I paid for the preorder so the beta version which I can access to is a plus, is something more I can have. 

I would invite you to read my initial post again. I never assumed a position to speak for "all the gamers", nor did I argue for some "majority of the people are upset"

to quote myself: "There are more standpoints to view this from, but these, i think, are the ones with negative impact on marketing/business that are relevant."  (relevant to business decisions)

If you took no issue in this that is great, but it does not address the issues I have raised.

My point of view was that of a random client, not much more.