So Warframe is an open beta?

[(PSN)CaptainIMalik]

I was downloading the game on PC and read that Warframe is in beta. So does that mean, the game won't always be free to play?

?

Edited January 15, 2017 by (PS4)CaptainIMalik

[Lance_Lionroar]

Ninjas will always play for free.

 

And let's be real for a second, we all know this ain't beta. No idea when DE will drop the beta and call it live though, not that it would make a difference to us.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Lance_Lionroar

[Ciaus]

It's not in open beta. 
They may say that but any game making the business they do with this fleshed out spending, account and economy system is not in beta. Under constant development, as most F2P games are, sure. 

And ideally it should always be F2P, it's settled into its business model. If they changed that they'd lose almost all their players. 

[CY13ERPUNK]

Warframe IS still in open beta

now that is a point of debate for some, but the bottom line, is that WF has been in OB for going on 3+ years now

and we still have quite a lot of placeholder content ingame

DE for mostly $ reasons however has decided to prioritize introducing new/unfinished content instead of filling out all of their existing content 1st

i foresee that sometime in 2018 WF will officially have no more placeholder content left over from CB, and at that point most likely DE will officially declare WF no longer in OB but in full release

but for now, we still have Phorid/Ambulas/teh Sergeant and many others that use existing models

Edited January 15, 2017 by CY13ERPUNK

[Myscho]

Beta as still in development

[Zebiko]

As soon as warframe gets out of open beta, it will stop all development. Basically the game is dead at that point.

Like so many things in life, names or titles don't always fit the reality of the status or situation. It's a throw back to 'never reading a book by its cover' idiom.

29 minutes ago, Lance_Lionroar said:

Ninjas will always play for free.

That being said, the game isn't truly free, not if you want to have fun. But supposedly, that's why people play games for.

[Separius]

27 minutes ago, Lance_Lionroar said:

we all know this ain't beta

 

25 minutes ago, Ciaus said:

It's not in open beta. 

You can say what you want, their stance, legal stance, on the matter, that's what matters.

Besides the game is still full of half baked features and issues only fixed with bandaids, so it's fair to say that it does indeed qualify as beta.

 

[Wyrmius_Prime]

28 minutes ago, Myscho said:

Beta as still in development

Please elaborate, because all MMORPGs are still in development since they get constant updates despite being released games.

[Ciaus]

11 minutes ago, Separius said:

You can say what you want, their stance, legal stance, on the matter, that's what matters.

 

Calling it that for legal reasons is a convenient defence they can fall on, not a reflection of the way the game actually functions. Which is like any other live release MMORPG. A description like "open beta" needn't only be thought of in a strict legal sense, I'd say that sense is far less useful for the average prospective player. 

[Separius]

3 minutes ago, Ciaus said:

Calling it that for legal reasons is a convenient defence they can fall on, not a reflection of the way the game actually functions.

That doesn't matter, don't you get it? If they say it's beta, it is beta, it's their product. Nothing you, me or anyone else - except them - can do about this. 

It's a fact. There is no point in discussing what you feel the beta is for X reason, when it's their say that counts in the matter.

This is pointless to talk about it.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Separius

[Littlerift]

They claim it is, but it in truth the term beta means almost nothing when it comes to modern gaming because different companies use it to mean different things. What DE seem to mean by beta is 'Everything is subject to change'.

[Gremlin]

Who cares what to call it. The game is what it is. Still very unfinished, but extremely playable.

[Ciaus]

2 minutes ago, Separius said:

That doesn't matter, don't you get it? If they say it's beta, it is beta, it's their product. Nothing you, me or anyone else - except them - can do about this. 

 

Calling a duck a cat don't make it so. I don't give a damn if it's the duck saying it. 

And I WASN'T arguing about the legal sense. I was talking about how the game has been structured and where it is in both it's monetary model and game development. A description like that is totally independent of what they creator says. In the gameplay sense, in how updates are structured and the focus on new content pieces primarily, it's no more open beta than almost any totally live game. THAT is independent of what DE says. 

Also no need to be condescending, especially when you totally ignored the core of my point. 

I feel like Littlerift's point probably clarifies this better than what I can: 

 

4 minutes ago, Littlerift said:

What DE seem to mean by beta is 'Everything is subject to change'.

Furthermore, an interesting point is that most game EULA's allow them to make as aggressive, if not more (in the allowance sense, more than in what they would be likely to actually do) so changes than DE does to Warframe. Being or calling yourself an "Open Beta" when you have a fully fleshed out an operating monetisation model is just a PR defence to make it 100% clear that anything can change, as opposed to you having to be cognisant of something only in the EULA nobody reads.

An example is Starcraft 2, large parts of the game were made free AFTER people had already purchased it, and it has shifted heavily towards smaller, individually priced campaigns and other such content. It's a total model shift of the kind WF has not undergone in a long time, and no-one would claim that to be open beta despite the fact that existing content is totally subject to change AND new, independently monetised content is still being developed. 

If you want to use DE's definition of Open Beta to call WF open beta, then damn near every game that gets patches and / or content added ever is still in open beta. 

 

[LSG501]

open beta yes and no

In terms of developing the gameplay/levels/weapons you could argue that it's beta because they keep tweaking/changing/buffing/nerfing stuff etc

The store/market is not beta

Adding new quests to warframe I'd personally say is not beta although elements of the quests themselves could be argued as beta, helminth cyst, focus system, operator etc because they've not been developed etc.

Realistically though it's not beta in the general term that people think of beta, ie finished product almost ready for release, just want mass testing to see if it's working well on a lot of systems....ie public bug testing (actually then maybe warframe is beta... we do get a lot of bugs popping up lol).  It also doesn't fully follow the f2p model imo so can't really use that term either.

[Ailissa]

Very few people still say it's a beta.

 

DE mentions it but I don't think they believe it anymore and you'll find a few people on the forums cling to it like a safety blanket.

 

As far as the game goes and how it is with it's business model, platforms and content it's been live for some time.

 

 

[Proxy345]

Some of the known bugs make me believe that its still in beta.

 

Mainly the enemies being stuck in walls and enemies not moving from their spawn places in some Defenses. 

Edited January 15, 2017 by Proxy345

[AcceI]

2 hours ago, Ciaus said:

It's not in open beta. 
They may say that but any game making the business they do with this fleshed out spending, account and economy system is not in beta. Under constant development, as most F2P games are, sure. 

And ideally it should always be F2P, it's settled into its business model. If they changed that they'd lose almost all their players. 

Have you seen archwing?  The wasteland that is PvP?  The balance or lack thereof? The character faces/dresses?

This is a beta still.  Its just more jarring nowadays since this game's core mechanics still has an alpha feel to it.

[jmthebigman]

2 hours ago, Lance_Lionroar said:

Ninjas will always play for free.

 

And let's be real for a second, we all know this ain't beta. No idea when DE will drop the beta and call it live though, not that it would make a difference to us.

Probably when a few core things wont change anymore. The beta tag is more a safety net for them that if an huge change is made they can refer to it.

example dmg 1.0 to dmg 2.0

[Littlerift]

28 minutes ago, AcceI said:

Have you seen archwing?  The wasteland that is PvP?  The balance or lack thereof? The character faces/dresses?

This is a beta still.  Its just more jarring nowadays since this game's core mechanics still has an alpha feel to it.

 

Being in beta, if you want to actually use the word properly and not abuse it like game developers do, is about being in a situation where a project still faces a risk of systematic failure both in terms of completion and return on investment - Warframe isn't in that situation at all, it's already made a return on investment and it's already been released to the market. 'Beta' isn't about being in a situation where improvements are still being made.

[Smilomaniac]

I'd argue that since "founder" access is no longer a thing, it's a finished free to play MMO with continued support and content updates. An additional point would be that I don't see anywhere on the Steam page listing it as being beta, in development or anything similar.
As Totalbiscuit said one year ago (a week from now): "They still claim it's in beta and that's one of the first things I'd throw right out of the window - No you aren't *laughs* You're not allowed to be in beta for years while charging money through your cash shop! Let's be frank, you're not in beta anymore, no excuses, thank you very much."

This whole game is one big oddity in almost all regards, but the pretense of calling it a beta is taking advantage of a technicality to do some questionable things. At one point or another, there will be legislation against companies owning your account and simultaneously holding all the cards. By far most EULA's and other agreements are already invalid in Europe.

On one hand it allows them to freely make drastic changes that in the end will greatly benefit the game. On the other hand, it's not ethical business, at least not in the strictest sense of the definition... It's slightly similar to the benevolent dictatorship argument - Is it really a bad thing if he does everything right?
I'll let history decide that one.

edit; Just to clarify, I'm not salty about the founder exclusives, I honestly don't care.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Smilomaniac

[Zepp_]

5 hours ago, Warfoxzero said:

As soon as warframe gets out of open beta, it will stop all development. Basically the game is dead at that point.

Like so many things in life, names or titles don't always fit the reality of the status or situation. It's a throw back to 'never reading a book by its cover' idiom.

That being said, the game isn't truly free, not if you want to have fun. But supposedly, that's why people play games for.

Wow, I've not often heard a set of opinions I understood so little.

[schilds]

Legal sense? If I say black is white, that doesn't make it legally true. If I say I'm selling apples when I'm selling oranges, that doesn't mean the law will recognise them as apples. If DE says its open beta, whether or not it is legally recognised as open beta can be tested and decided in court, potentially contrary to DE's claims, however many terms/contracts they ask us to sign or check boxes they ask us to tick.

It is not DE's legal stance that matters, it is the courts'. If it were ever tested, some jurisdictions might allow them to keep calling it open beta while others might not.

[Littlerift]

As Smilomaniac pointed out, TB hit the nail on the head when he highlighted the absurdity of claiming you're in beta while having an extensive premium currency shop. When you're spending development time creating noggles you're not in a situation where the project still has the potential to fail, and hence you aren't in beta.

 

Edit: And for the love of God: Beta does not mean "still in development" or "more content will be added". It means that the project can still fail. Game developers have warped and twisted the definition to justify all kinds of crap, but the fact they use it doesn't mean that the actual definition no longer applies.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Littlerift

[Zebiko]

48 minutes ago, Zepp_ said:

Wow, I've not often heard a set of opinions I understood so little.

What a joke

[Eliakin]