An urgent message from the community to the masters.

Quite a big post to ask for a pre-download.

For Bless on Steam, such a thing is impossible and as been answered a couple of times already.

Steam doesn't allow Early Access games to have any sort of pre-order, thus making pre-load impossible for Bless.

In this case the Master is STEAM and STEAM doesnt allow prepurchase and predownload of EA games.

if you are not trying to represent the "Community" maybe don't, i dunno, write "WE AS THE COMMUNITY WANT...." Twice and in your thread title...

And, they cant anyways.

Well we all already know it will be a disaster the EA for Bless Online, the dev's are asking for trouble and they will get in very big trouble at the 28th. It is obvious they did not think this true how to manage the release of Bless Online in the West for NA and EU as the rest of the world with different time zones and the amount of players that will want to play the game at EA.

- Cannot preorder the game before EA

- No Predownload

- Game release times are equal across all time zones for different countries, they just took the NA time for EU and the rest…

- EU will lose 1 FULL DAY of head start so not even worth buying the game, better wait till 30th and safe 10 Euro.

This could have been avoided easily, it would just take a little more effort from Neowiz to make it happen. But hey First impression dosn't matter right ^^.

mrdgamez wrote:

- EU will lose 1 FULL DAY of head start so not even worth buying the game, better wait till 30th and safe 10 Euro.

Someone had to take the night shift in the world. No matter what time they decided to release the game somewhere in the world would have been at night cuz science. However, DO NOTE: It will still be a full 48 hours no matter where you are in the world for early access. Yes, early access isn't starting until like 6-7 pm in Europe, however that also means the game won't release until 6-7pm on the 30th. I understand that this time doesn't necessarily go great with the average work hours since it's during the week, but there isn't much we can do about how day and night works in the world. The only way they could have some what managed this is by releasing it on the weekend. However remember, Neowiz's support and development centers won't have as many people on shift, meaning the huge flow of support tickets and bugs from the first couple of days will be handled by a minimalist support team, which is a terrible idea. They could also have a separate release time for the EU version of the game at 10 am, but then america would complain that Europe gets it earlier than us... and I mean, do you really want america to complain, are you trying to ask for a storm?! it's America!

also... the extra $10 isn't for 2 day early access, it's for a 30 day premium membership which actually costs $15 by itself.

RsmCrazyGamer wrote:

Someone had to take the night shift in the world. No matter what time they decided to release the game somewhere in the world would have been at night cuz science. However, DO NOTE: It will still be a full 48 hours no matter where you are in the world for early access. Yes, early access isn't starting until like 6-7 pm in Europe, however that also means the game won't release until 6-7pm on the 30th. I understand that this time doesn't necessarily go great with the average work hours since it's during the week, but there isn't much we can do about how day and night works in the world. The only way they could have some what managed this is by releasing it on the weekend. However remember, Neowiz's support and development centers won't have as many people on shift, meaning the huge flow of support tickets and bugs from the first couple of days will be handled by a minimalist support team, which is a terrible idea. They could also have a separate release time for the EU version of the game at 10 am, but then america would complain that Europe gets it earlier than us... and I mean, do you really want america to complain, are you trying to ask for a storm?! it's America!

also... the extra $10 isn't for 2 day early access, it's for a 30 day premium membership which actually costs $15 by itself.

So what's your point here?

mrdgamez wrote:

So what's your point here?

How they're releasing it right now is the best they could do. No matter what they did someone would complain, but at least this method puts them in a position to handle it the best.

My other point is 'Murica is very good at complaining, though I'm not proud to admit that ;-;

RsmCrazyGamer wrote:

Someone had to take the night shift in the world. No matter what time they decided to release the game somewhere in the world would have been at night cuz science. However, DO NOTE: It will still be a full 48 hours no matter where you are in the world for early access. Yes, early access isn't starting until like 6-7 pm in Europe, however that also means the game won't release until 6-7pm on the 30th. I understand that this time doesn't necessarily go great with the average work hours since it's during the week, but there isn't much we can do about how day and night works in the world. The only way they could have some what managed this is by releasing it on the weekend. However remember, Neowiz's support and development centers won't have as many people on shift, meaning the huge flow of support tickets and bugs from the first couple of days will be handled by a minimalist support team, which is a terrible idea. They could also have a separate release time for the EU version of the game at 10 am, but then america would complain that Europe gets it earlier than us... and I mean, do you really want america to complain, are you trying to ask for a storm?! it's America!

also... the extra $10 isn't for 2 day early access, it's for a 30 day premium membership which actually costs $15 by itself.

Are we sure customer support will be located in the U.S. or Europe? I'm guessing Indian...

Jeff wrote:

Are we sure customer support will be located in the U.S. or Europe? I'm guessing Indian...

I thought it was just going to be in korea. Regardless of where it is, weekends usually have less workers than weekdays.

These kinds of posts always make me chuckle. Launching popular new software is not a mystery to be solved, flooded login servers, stability issues, etc. are problems with very easy solutions. Why do they still exist in almost every video game launch? Because they're not worth fixing.

With a 1 in 100 exception, video game servers get hammered the most they ever will at launch. After the honeymoon period (a week or so, sometimes more, sometimes less) the sheen will wear off, and the population will start to decrease.

From a strictly business perspective, it makes absolutely zero sense to order, develop, and maintain hardware that will only be used for the first month of your product's existence.

Now, you're probably going to spout some nonsense about how good launches attract players, keep them around, etc. To which I will say wrong, and bid you good luck finding any credible source that has studied and proven that to be true. BTW - none exist, and that can be easily proven.

If all a video game had to do to attract tons more players was beef up login services, why don't they? If this was the case, video games wouldn't have these problems. Every person responsible for tackling these logistics in the video game world have universally agreed it's not worth the investment for the handful of weeks worth of stability they provide. Again, 1 in 100 games bucks this trend one way or another, maybe.

Also, if you've already got full login services, you know two things. 1: Exactly how many people currently want to play your game. 2: The fact that these people will wait in queues and deal with stability issues to see if the game is something they want to play.

People who quit in the honeymoon period of a launch don't matter and never will. Whatever the product is, it's not for them and almost nothing will change that. If it was stable, it'd be FPS issues. Or pop-in. Or class imbalances. Whatever the excuse would be. People quit quickly because they want to, not because they feel they have to due to an issue they're experiencing.

Don't like this/disagree? Doesn't matter. This is the way things will be forever, or until login services become so affordable that adding orders of magnitude to your solutions during launch is basically free in both cost and manpower. I don't like it either, but that's the way it is.

The Balance wrote:

These kinds of posts always make me chuckle. Launching popular new software is not a mystery to be solved, flooded login servers, stability issues, etc. are problems with very easy solutions. Why do they still exist in almost every video game launch? Because they're not worth fixing.

With a 1 in 100 exception, video game servers get hammered the most they ever will at launch. After the honeymoon period (a week or so, sometimes more, sometimes less) the sheen will wear off, and the population will start to decrease.

From a strictly business perspective, it makes absolutely zero sense to order, develop, and maintain hardware that will only be used for the first month of your product's existence.

Now, you're probably going to spout some nonsense about how good launches attract players, keep them around, etc. To which I will say wrong, and bid you good luck finding any credible source that has studied and proven that to be true. BTW - none exist, and that can be easily proven.

If all a video game had to do to attract tons more players was beef up login services, why don't they? If this was the case, video games wouldn't have these problems. Every person responsible for tackling these logistics in the video game world have universally agreed it's not worth the investment for the handful of weeks worth of stability they provide. Again, 1 in 100 games bucks this trend one way or another, maybe.

Also, if you've already got full login services, you know two things. 1: Exactly how many people currently want to play your game. 2: The fact that these people will wait in queues and deal with stability issues to see if the game is something they want to play.

People who quit in the honeymoon period of a launch don't matter and never will. Whatever the product is, it's not for them and almost nothing will change that. If it was stable, it'd be FPS issues. Or pop-in. Or class imbalances. Whatever the excuse would be. People quit quickly because they want to, not because they feel they have to due to an issue they're experiencing.

Don't like this/disagree? Doesn't matter. This is the way things will be forever, or until login services become so affordable that adding orders of magnitude to your solutions during launch is basically free in both cost and manpower. I don't like it either, but that's the way it is.

Display More

This is a very long and aggressive semi-irrational arguement on a post that can simply be answered with "steam does not allow pre-downloads to early access titles and they will not change their policy for one game."

RsmCrazyGamer wrote:

This is a very long and aggressive semi-irrational arguement on a post that can simply be answered with "steam does not allow pre-downloads to early access titles and they will not change their policy for one game."

You're the one who replied to it just to answer it with, "steam does not allow pre-downloads to early access titles and they will not change their policy for one game."

The Balance wrote:

These kinds of posts always make me chuckle. Launching popular new software is not a mystery to be solved, flooded login servers, stability issues, etc. are problems with very easy solutions. Why do they still exist in almost every video game launch? Because they're not worth fixing.

With a 1 in 100 exception, video game servers get hammered the most they ever will at launch. After the honeymoon period (a week or so, sometimes more, sometimes less) the sheen will wear off, and the population will start to decrease.

From a strictly business perspective, it makes absolutely zero sense to order, develop, and maintain hardware that will only be used for the first month of your product's existence.

Now, you're probably going to spout some nonsense about how good launches attract players, keep them around, etc. To which I will say wrong, and bid you good luck finding any credible source that has studied and proven that to be true. BTW - none exist, and that can be easily proven.

If all a video game had to do to attract tons more players was beef up login services, why don't they? If this was the case, video games wouldn't have these problems. Every person responsible for tackling these logistics in the video game world have universally agreed it's not worth the investment for the handful of weeks worth of stability they provide. Again, 1 in 100 games bucks this trend one way or another, maybe.

Also, if you've already got full login services, you know two things. 1: Exactly how many people currently want to play your game. 2: The fact that these people will wait in queues and deal with stability issues to see if the game is something they want to play.

People who quit in the honeymoon period of a launch don't matter and never will. Whatever the product is, it's not for them and almost nothing will change that. If it was stable, it'd be FPS issues. Or pop-in. Or class imbalances. Whatever the excuse would be. People quit quickly because they want to, not because they feel they have to due to an issue they're experiencing.

Don't like this/disagree? Doesn't matter. This is the way things will be forever, or until login services become so affordable that adding orders of magnitude to your solutions during launch is basically free in both cost and manpower. I don't like it either, but that's the way it is.

Display More

There in lies the magic of cloud hosting. You don't have to do anything like that; all you have to do it pay a bit more money for launch week. But they won't.

The Balance wrote:

You're the one who replied to it just to answer it with, "steam does not allow pre-downloads to early access titles and they will not change their policy for one game."

People have already responded with that answer in this thread, and others including myself began to talk about ways they could have avoided a situation like this. Assuming you Read the full discussion before posting on the thread, I'm not sure I understand what you're argument is suppose to be.