Wow, even Matrix/Slitherine has joined the rest of the industry and selling Battle Academy 2 Early Access. :P Sorry but, selling unfinished software is just like selling snake oil or in this case (Slitherine Oil - LOL). Anyone who thinks this is a good idea, just wait until EA and/or Microsoft starts doing this! :o
In most beta's 99.98% of the time your great idea and most of your input is completely ignored (design is already done). Your nothing but, a "you paid for it (i.e idiot)" beta tester. Worst yet, if you really play Beta tester, you'll be so sick of the game before release, you'll likely never play it again after release.
What's next for this industry, finish it yourself software? ;)
Yes, choice is bad!
How dare producers give consumers what they want. How dare they make money from doing it. And all you people who want early access are unquestionably not as smart as Sgt. Rock! After all, he's first genius evah to figure out what works for him is for What Should Be For Everyone!
Most of Matrix games are unfinished, so whats the big deal?
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
To me I am fine with it.....it's our choice to buy or not buy...don't see anything wrong with it. This of course assumes they have some level of testers outside of the first access people.
I actually truly do not mind paying for beta access. I know, I know...it used to be free.
I should say I don't mind paying for BETA access IF the cost is cheaper. There's a particularly expensive game out there that seems to be sitting in BETA afaic and that cost a phenomenal amount of money - so at least they're coming clean now.... but you know what...games seem to almost always hit the "stores" in beta format anyway...at least they're being honest about it.
Yup, their EAP started with Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager...and it is/was at a discount.
I believe to be an Elite (the computer game, not a rating at Matrix) beta tester was in the neighborhood of +$325. US.
Sorry, not doing it.
Good Hunting.
MR
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on February 10, 2014, 02:43:52 PM
To me I am fine with it.....it's our choice to buy or not buy...don't see anything wrong with it.
I agree nothing's wrong with it in the sense that folks are free to pay for beta or not.
But I do think it's a bad trend that ultimately will mean fewer games actually get finished. The pay before finished model just creates too much incentive to collect first and complete never.
I don't pay to test.
If some people want that option fine.Not me.
I don't buy unfinished products especially from companies like Matrix/Slitherine with a history of charging high dollar for not so high dollar or 1/2 assed games.
I may be interested in putting up a down payment for the game to test if I like the idea of the game and an option for paying full price when the product is finished or the guarantee of a refund if the product is never completed.
Otherwise I'll wait and see how it fares after it hits the open market.
There are way too many incomplete games out now and I can think of better ways to burn my money.
I don't pay to test either. However, if companies want to do this - fine. It means we find out early on how crap it is -or not.
If the game is finished and good by release - even better. If not, we already have a heads-up on whether to avoid it.
This pay of unfinished software is a bad trend I tell you and if enough people pay, it will become the norm, if it already hasn't!
For those who think it's a good idea, what are you willing to pay for next?
1. Pay for demos ($5, $10) a pop?
2. Pay for upgrades?
3. Pay for bug fixes?
4. Pay for features (developer gives you a list of Features; just pay an extra $29.95 for feature 1, pay $39.95 for feature 2, pay $50.95 for feature 3 , etc).
Sucker 101- Once you start paying for snake oil, then that's all you ever get because, everyone will be selling it! Why sell the real thing (finished product) if you keep buying the (unfinished version)!
What's next, pay to finish, you already paid for the beta now, just send another $39.95 for the upgraded (wink, wink finished) product! :P
Quote from: SgtRock on February 10, 2014, 04:57:01 PM
This pay of unfinished software is a bad trend I tell you and if enough people pay, it will become the norm, if it already hasn't!
For those who think it's a good idea, what are you willing to pay for next?
1. Pay for demos ($5, $10) a pop?
2. Pay for upgrades?
3. Pay for bug fixes?
4. Pay for features (developer gives you a chose of Features; pay an extra $29.95 for feature 1, pay $39.95 for feature 2, pay $50.95 for feature 3 , etc).
What's next, pay to finish, you already paid for the beta now, just send another $39.95 for the upgraded (wink, wink finished) product! :P
We're talking about people paying in now for a game still in active development. It's made very clear that you are not purchasing a finished product, you are purchasing something in development. Nobody is being misled about what they're getting. There is zero exaggeration about what you're purchasing. And you continue to be given new builds with new features, and the finished game when it's complete.
How in the world does that compare to paying for patches, upgrades or bug fixing for a finished product? This all reads like the sort of slippery slope nonsense one would expect to be coming from the mouth of Chicken Little.
I don't pay to beta test games. It's supposed to be the other way around.
But as long as someone pays for unfinished games, expect them to be put up for sale.
Quote from: Arctic Blast on February 10, 2014, 05:02:44 PM
Quote from: SgtRock on February 10, 2014, 04:57:01 PM
This pay of unfinished software is a bad trend I tell you and if enough people pay, it will become the norm, if it already hasn't!
For those who think it's a good idea, what are you willing to pay for next?
1. Pay for demos ($5, $10) a pop?
2. Pay for upgrades?
3. Pay for bug fixes?
4. Pay for features (developer gives you a chose of Features; pay an extra $29.95 for feature 1, pay $39.95 for feature 2, pay $50.95 for feature 3 , etc).
What's next, pay to finish, you already paid for the beta now, just send another $39.95 for the upgraded (wink, wink finished) product! :P
We're talking about people paying in now for a game still in active development. It's made very clear that you are not purchasing a finished product, you are purchasing something in development. Nobody is being misled about what they're getting. There is zero exaggeration about what you're purchasing. And you continue to be given new builds with new features, and the finished game when it's complete.
How in the world does that compare to paying for patches, upgrades or bug fixing for a finished product? This all reads like the sort of slippery slope nonsense one would expect to be coming from the mouth of Chicken Little.
Don't take off those rose colored glasses! ;D
Just look at some of the Steam's early releases, it's not clear what your getting (Alpha, Beta, etc.), in fact Alpha and/or Beta release can very greatly from one developer or another.
Where is the money back guaranty that the game will ever be finished? There's a long long list of games that never make it to release, the only difference is, no one sold the unfinished version (aka early release).
It's a economic fact, if people start buying unfinished software, then you'll get more and more of it!!! It's only a matter of time before one of the early release projects fails before anyone get's a completed version!
Ha! Paying for beta access! It's PT Barnum's dream come true!
Not gonna do it, wouldn't be prudent at this time. Paying for beta access is BAD! IT'S BAD!
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn01.dailycaller.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2Fdana-carvey-e1329751768534.jpg&hash=1d591b6956672d8af5b863dd0b21b4af23279de4)
Well played, sir.
Quote from: Queeg on February 10, 2014, 03:23:23 PM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on February 10, 2014, 02:43:52 PM
To me I am fine with it.....it's our choice to buy or not buy...don't see anything wrong with it.
I agree nothing's wrong with it in the sense that folks are free to pay for beta or not.
But I do think it's a bad trend that ultimately will mean fewer games actually get finished. The pay before finished model just creates too much incentive to collect first and complete never.
Not sure about that...anything is possible. However, so far I have not been disappointed in the results of any instant access/early release programs I have been part of so far. That even includes Franchise Hockey Manager which had a horrible launch that I paid for early access. What made that situation OK was the fact they gave folks a refund so I did not lose any money. Also, Steam has a policy where you can get a refund while it is still in beta, which I received a refund for Company of Heroes 2 after I felt it was not the game for me.
Not saying this will be the experience with every early access game but at the end of the day it comes down to a choice. I will only invest in developers I reasonably trust so I believe the risk is minimal. Will I possibly get burned at some point, maybe.
But let's be honest that many games are released nowadays somewhat unfinished anyway without an early access program....I don't see much difference. However, I respect the decision of some who prefer not to pay for a beta, I have no problem with that. Just like I have no problem with people wanting to participate....its a choice.
When I beta tested War Between the States, they gave me the game for free.
The other two games I've bought for beta release, Star Lords I supposedly get the game cheaper than release and War of Magic I can't remember.
I do know I put a lot more time into finding bugs and game play issues on WBTS knowing I was going to get something than the other two which I hardly touched.
Quote from: RedArgo on February 10, 2014, 08:52:06 PM
When I beta tested War Between the States, they gave me the game for free.
The other two games I've bought for beta release, Star Lords I supposedly get the game cheaper than release and War of Magic I can't remember.
I do know I put a lot more time into finding bugs and game play issues on WBTS knowing I was going to get something than the other two which I hardly touched.
Those are two other key points...typically it does offer you the opportunity to get the game cheaper than at release and if you know your going to buy anyways, why not get it early too. The only downside I see is if there are no recruited or in-house testing teams as part of the testing. If the game will solely rely on the feedback of paid beta testers than I do think the quality of the game could slip a bit since people who pay for the product will feel less obligated to really test the game since they believe they owe nothing since they bought it and I can't argue with that.
Quote from: SgtRock on February 10, 2014, 05:35:23 PM
Quote from: Arctic Blast on February 10, 2014, 05:02:44 PM
Quote from: SgtRock on February 10, 2014, 04:57:01 PM
This pay of unfinished software is a bad trend I tell you and if enough people pay, it will become the norm, if it already hasn't!
For those who think it's a good idea, what are you willing to pay for next?
1. Pay for demos ($5, $10) a pop?
2. Pay for upgrades?
3. Pay for bug fixes?
4. Pay for features (developer gives you a chose of Features; pay an extra $29.95 for feature 1, pay $39.95 for feature 2, pay $50.95 for feature 3 , etc).
What's next, pay to finish, you already paid for the beta now, just send another $39.95 for the upgraded (wink, wink finished) product! :P
We're talking about people paying in now for a game still in active development. It's made very clear that you are not purchasing a finished product, you are purchasing something in development. Nobody is being misled about what they're getting. There is zero exaggeration about what you're purchasing. And you continue to be given new builds with new features, and the finished game when it's complete.
How in the world does that compare to paying for patches, upgrades or bug fixing for a finished product? This all reads like the sort of slippery slope nonsense one would expect to be coming from the mouth of Chicken Little.
Don't take off those rose colored glasses! ;D
Just look at some of the Steam's early releases, it's not clear what your getting (Alpha, Beta, etc.), in fact Alpha and/or Beta release can very greatly from one developer or another.
Where is the money back guaranty that the game will ever be finished? There's a long long list of games that never make it to release, the only difference is, no one sold the unfinished version (aka early release).
It's a economic fact, if people start buying unfinished software, then you'll get more and more of it!!! It's only a matter of time before one of the early release projects fails before anyone get's a completed version!
Every single Steam early release I've ever looked at indicates in the game page in large letters that it is in Alpha or Beta status (depending on which it has reached at that point).
You are knowingly buying into an early release. There is no guarantee of completion, which is why it is a gamble. I never claimed otherwise. What I DO differ with is taking the opposite approach that you're taking, that this automatically equals "OH NO, DOOMZ AND GLOOMZ FOR ALL GAMEZ". It is a gamble, but one you're walking into with full knowledge that you're rolling the dice. Of course, how big a dice roll it is depends on the developer in question. Considering the success of Battle Academy, I hardly see buying into the sequel as much of a gamble at all.
If it fails and nobody gets a completed version, that sucks. However, everyone who bought in early knew what they were getting into. Just like, if a Kickstarter project fails, everyone knew what they were getting into with that as well. That doesn't mean this equals an alarmist slippery slope to some sort of panicky gaming end times. It also doesn't equal scads of developers greedily taking the money and running, since that would kill their entire profit model, and it's not like they're likely to be pulling enough money to run to some tropical paradise for the rest of their lives anyway.
isn't that the normal price for this game? Apparently my new thing is early access i've bought 5 games and so far i haven't been disappointed. My rule of thumb is there has to be enough game to enjoy when i buy, even if nothing else gets added. Of course these games were reduced in price and most were on sale at the time of purchase. I'm a fan of Battle Academy and will eventually pick this up.
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on February 10, 2014, 08:57:07 PM
Quote from: RedArgo on February 10, 2014, 08:52:06 PM
When I beta tested War Between the States, they gave me the game for free.
The other two games I've bought for beta release, Star Lords I supposedly get the game cheaper than release and War of Magic I can't remember.
I do know I put a lot more time into finding bugs and game play issues on WBTS knowing I was going to get something than the other two which I hardly touched.
Those are two other key points...typically it does offer you the opportunity to get the game cheaper than at release and if you know your going to buy anyways, why not get it early too. The only downside I see is if there are no recruited or in-house testing teams as part of the testing. If the game will solely rely on the feedback of paid beta testers than I do think the quality of the game could slip a bit since people who pay for the product will feel less obligated to really test the game since they believe they owe nothing since they bought it and I can't argue with that.
This is a good point, hopefully these early releases aren't replacing a real beta test with paid customers who just want an early look.
Quote from: SgtRock on February 10, 2014, 04:57:01 PM
This pay of unfinished software is a bad trend I tell you and if enough people pay, it will become the norm, if it already hasn't!
For those who think it's a good idea, what are you willing to pay for next?
1. Pay for demos ($5, $10) a pop?
2. Pay for upgrades?
3. Pay for bug fixes?
4. Pay for features (developer gives you a list of Features; just pay an extra $29.95 for feature 1, pay $39.95 for feature 2, pay $50.95 for feature 3 , etc).
Sucker 101- Once you start paying for snake oil, then that's all you ever get because, everyone will be selling it! Why sell the real thing (finished product) if you keep buying the (unfinished version)!
What's next, pay to finish, you already paid for the beta now, just send another $39.95 for the upgraded (wink, wink finished) product! :P
Reductio ad absurdum is often so wonderfully meta.
Quote from: Greybriar on February 10, 2014, 05:19:15 PM
I don't pay to beta test games. It's supposed to be the other way around.
But as long as someone pays for unfinished games, expect them to be put up for sale.
Why is it supposed to be the other way around? Because that's how it was done in the past?
You are a little rude platypus....People are allowed their views and allowed to be unhappy with the new trend of releasing unfinished games that will not be complete before the developers move on.
Quote from: SgtRock on February 10, 2014, 04:57:01 PM
This pay of unfinished software is a bad trend I tell you and if enough people pay, it will become the norm, if it already hasn't!
For those who think it's a good idea, what are you willing to pay for next?
1. Pay for demos ($5, $10) a pop?
2. Pay for upgrades?
3. Pay for bug fixes?
4. Pay for features (developer gives you a list of Features; just pay an extra $29.95 for feature 1, pay $39.95 for feature 2, pay $50.95 for feature 3 , etc).
Sucker 101- Once you start paying for snake oil, then that's all you ever get because, everyone will be selling it! Why sell the real thing (finished product) if you keep buying the (unfinished version)!
What's next, pay to finish, you already paid for the beta now, just send another $39.95 for the upgraded (wink, wink finished) product! :P
Sarge, you're undercutting your argument by accusing those who buy into early access betas of being suckers. The fact is, if that's what they want to spend their money on, what's the big deal? Is anyone forcing you to buy into early access?
As to your other points...would I pay for upgrades? Yes, most definitely yes!
Would I pay for new features? Absolutely!
Would I pay for bug fixes? No, not directly. But I'm sure that I already have many times by purchasing feature packs.
For certain games that grab me and hold my attention, or represent a certain gaming love of mine(Wings Over Flanders Fields, World of Tanks, Rise of Flight, anything Ageod), I would most certainly pay for continued development and added features.
If you choose not to, that's your prerogative. Live and let live, eh?
BA2 has Cooperative Multiplayer!
I'm in....but not before release.
And its about damn time that a wargame had coop. I hate PVP anything.
Quote from: -budd- on February 10, 2014, 10:32:56 PM
isn't that the normal price for this game? Apparently my new thing is early access i've bought 5 games and so far i haven't been disappointed. My rule of thumb is there has to be enough game to enjoy when i buy, even if nothing else gets added. Of course these games were reduced in price and most were on sale at the time of purchase. I'm a fan of Battle Academy and will eventually pick this up.
I think paying for early access is a good sign for games. It allows the developers to escape some pressure to release a "finished" game too early and it allows players to have more influence on how the game evolves. That said, I have been avoiding playing in Alphas and betas lately. In fact, as a rule, I avoid games until a few months after they are finished. But then I really don't play all that many different games and I do spend a certain amount of gaming time on boardgames or otherwise fooling with editors and such. Still, if you play a lot of games or you are particularly interested in the game, buying into the beta can be a lot of fun.
I wonder to what extent the advent of early access is the result of people having finally caught on that pre-purchasing is kind of silly.
I suppose if you live in a rural area serviced by a single shopping mall and only buy hard copies of console games (or something like that), pre-purchasing almost makes sense so the store won't be sold out by the time school lets out at three o'clock.
Other than that, I really don't see why consumers would really need something like that.
Now game developers, that's another story. If it takes two or three years to build and market a game, that's a really long time for no money to be coming in while you (hopefully) pay everyone's salaries. So game developers really need pre-purchases to keep their efforts afloat. And the rest of us really need it too, because if the developer goes broke, the game doesn't happen.
If I'm right (with nothing other than a hunch to base it on) that people are finally catching on to how pointless pre-purchasing is, developers will need to find something to give them that much needed final dribble of cash during the final months before harvest. Early access sort of fits the bill, and might even give a kind of large-scale beta-testing that normal procedures wouldn't provide. No matter how good your testers are, there are bound to be things that will only crawl out from under the rug during some kind of mass release. And that, by the way, is why I usually want to wait a year or two before buying a game (especially Paradox titles).
I've only purchased one early access game, and I almost didn't do it. What got me was a deep discount on the price, and I decided that it would take over a year for the sale prices to get down to that level. So I held my nose, bought the thing, and apart from taking a sneak peak didn't install it until after the release date.
My initial take on the whole thing was correct (at least on a sample of one). The idea of paying money to play a frustrating, buggy piece of software continues to make no sense to me. But I'm glad early access exists, because the more ways there are for independent developers to raise money, the better off we'll all be.
[P.S. -- That buggy piece of software that I bought at a good price on early access still has a fair number of bugs in it, and is probably going to need the usual one year shake-out period. Most people can apparently play it, but there's a game-halting freeze that knocks a small class of people (myself included) out of the loop. There may be some workarounds, but it will require testing. What makes this annoying is that this is precisely the kind of thing that I was hoping early access would shake out of the game. At least the developers are still talking to people on the Steam forums].
I'm generally fine with people purchasing early access to betas -- with three caveats:
1.) It must be clearly stated/labelled as being a beta.
2.) The early-access purchase cost is lower than the full release price.
3.) The devs (to second GrimReaper's point) are not relying solely on the feedback of those early-access purchasers.
As long as these three criteria are met, I honestly don't feel it's a problem. More than that, I think it can actually be beneficial in a lot of ways (more money for development, greater feedback, etc.). I still wouldn't say I'm necessarily wild about the idea, but neither do I have any objection to it.
Quote from: skeptical.platypus on February 11, 2014, 01:54:09 AM
Quote from: Greybriar on February 10, 2014, 05:19:15 PM
I don't pay to beta test games. It's supposed to be the other way around.
But as long as someone pays for unfinished games, expect them to be put up for sale.
Why is it supposed to be the other way around? Because that's how it was done in the past?
Oh? Others have shared how they got the game they were beta testing for free when it was released. Others were actually paid for beta testing a game. I wasn't paid, but I
never had to pay to be a beta tester.
Quote from: Greybriar on February 11, 2014, 01:55:02 PM
Quote from: skeptical.platypus on February 11, 2014, 01:54:09 AM
Quote from: Greybriar on February 10, 2014, 05:19:15 PM
I don't pay to beta test games. It's supposed to be the other way around.
But as long as someone pays for unfinished games, expect them to be put up for sale.
Why is it supposed to be the other way around? Because that's how it was done in the past?
Oh? Others have shared how they got the game they were beta testing for free when it was released. Others were actually paid for beta testing a game. I wasn't paid, but I never had to pay to be a beta tester.
That doesn't answer my question. Yes, people have been paid for beta testing in the past and may very well be paid for beta testing in the future. You've indicated (twice) that you've never paid to beta test.
But you've also stated that "It's
supposed to be the other way around." So why is it
supposed to be the other way around? As opposed to a choice that individuals can make? If you're not opposed to others choosing differently than you have, why suggest it's
supposed to be one way?
I certainly don't believe that you think something is supposed to be because of the choices you've made, so I'm curious why you think beta testers are supposed to get paid. Is it possible, "That's Way it's Supposed to Be," simply grumped out because you think it's stupid to pay for beta testing?
I've never paid to beta test myself, although that's largely because I'm a lousy beta tester. I have, otoh, payed for early access I think five times now. Purely because I have poor impulse control and enjoy playing games.
I think individual choice is the way it's supposed to be.
It has been customary in the past for betas to at least be free to participate in. Is that so hard for you to comprehend, platypus?
Now quit trolling.
Quote from: Greybriar on February 11, 2014, 05:36:10 PM
It has been customary in the past for betas to at least be free to participate in. Is that so hard for you to comprehend, platypus?
Not at all.
It is, however, apparently impossible for you to comprehend that simply because something has been customary in the past does not necessarily indicate the way it's supposed to be.
I just don't know of any other business where it's an acceptable business practice to sell unfinished products. I also know there have been players for years that have been willing to buy, pay full price even, to gain early access to games. Why is this acceptable now, when it wasn't five years ago? I just hate to think of what some marketing guru will try and sell or charge us for next.
Would love to hear from someone from the Harvard Business school on this one! :D
Quote from: SgtRock on February 11, 2014, 06:00:29 PM
I just don't know of any other business where it's an acceptable business practice to sell unfinished products. I also know there have been players for years that have been willing to buy, pay full price even, to gain early access to games. Why is this acceptable now, when it wasn't five years ago? I just hate to think of what some marketing guru will try and sell or charge us for next.
Would love to hear from someone from the Harvard Business school on this one! :D
It has been customary in the past to let supply and demand find their level. So when unfinished products have been sold before, it's been up to the consumer to determine if that's acceptable to them or not. An argument could certainly be made that Windows pre XP was the most financially successfully beta test on the planet.
I concur that there have long been fanboys (and I'll include myself in that) would be inclined to pay for early access / alpha / beta testing in the past. But to claim that it wasn't acceptable is an assumption. It wasn't common, but that has nothing to do with being acceptable.
As to why the sudden surge in the last few years? There are all kinds of contributing factors, not the least of which have been the emergence of crowdsourcing.
I appreciate you looking out for everyone's best interest, but I don't want this particular flavor of nanny state. I'd much rather have the option of making a personal choice. And when and if I get burned, it'll be nobody's fault but mine.
Quote from: Greybriar on February 11, 2014, 06:13:55 PM
Quote from: skeptical.platypus on February 11, 2014, 05:46:32 PM
....Not at all....
QUIT TROLLING!
Seriously? You need to unclench. Not being able to have your assumptions questioned is no way to go through life.
@skeptical.platypus So you're saying being charged for something that has until now has been free is a better option? That sounds like a suit from EA trying to talk gamers into paying for something they have previously gotten free of charge and thinking they are getting a better deal.
Quote from: Greybriar on February 11, 2014, 06:41:19 PM
@skeptical.platypus So you're saying being charged for something that has until now has been free is a better option? That sounds like a suit from EA trying to talk gamers into paying for something they have previously gotten free of charge and thinking they are getting a better deal.
Ultimately, I have no issue with anyone who supports early access and others that don't...simply a choice and I would never try to sway someone to change their opinion.
However, I do believe there is a difference between beta testing and early access. You typically have to be selected as a beta participant and it is usually assumed you will be doing your best to test the game and report issues. Therefore, beta testing has traditionally been free and your typically bound to an NDA where you can't really speak about it. As for a first access, I don't think it has the same meaning as beta testing. Sure, your playing with incomplete software, but since you bought the game and in no way agreed to be a tester, your not really a beta tester. Your a person who had an interest in getting a sneak peek of the game and potentially getting it for a cheaper pre-release price. Most first access people will never provide any kind of bug report or contribute to making the game better.
The only way I would say they are the same is if the company eliminated all true beta testers (people selected) and internal testing teams, therefore leaving it completely to the early access people to test. Personally I don't think this is the case....therefore, I don't believe comparing beta testing practices and early access is really apples to apples......
Quote from: Greybriar on February 11, 2014, 06:41:19 PM
@skeptical.platypus So you're saying being charged for something that has until now has been free is a better option? That sounds like a suit from EA trying to talk gamers into paying for something they have previously gotten free of charge and thinking they are getting a better deal.
There are some assumptions in your example above that I have some problems with. I think that alpha/beta access has (and is) not available to everyone in all titles (free or otherwise). For example, I think (and this purely conjecture) that Prison Architect would not be widely available in alpha or beta for free. So in the case of Prison Architect, I'd propose that the better deal from your example above would be that I am getting access to something I wouldn't have previously.
To use your EA example, I am saying I have no problem with EA giving me the option of paying to access their game early. I see the biggest potential harm in that scenario is to those who make the decision that they are willing to pay for something that they may not have had to pay for before.
A secondary harm is what I think you may be driving at here -- those who would have been able to access the alpha/beta of the EA title previously for free now cannot. That is a compelling argument, and I'm not sure there's a right or wrong answer except for our own. The biggest counter argument I have is that I don't think anyone expects games to be free post launch, so why should there be an expectation that pre launch it should be available for free.
I definitely agree with you that paying for access for alpha/beta will increase the likelihood of games being released (that's paraphrasing). Some of those releases are likely to be considered unfinished (a very subject term I think you'd agree). Some of those releases are going to be excellent (a very subjective term I think you'd agree). In both of those cases, I agree completely that none may have happened without paying for an unfinished project. I think the potential for good here far outweighs the potential for harm.
Finally, to go back to your EA example, I am very much a caveat emptor kind of guy. If EA wants to try to sucker me into thinking I'm getting a better deal by making me pay to access something that had been free before, shame on my for buying that bullshit. But unless EA has been intentionally misleading, I am ok with the sucker (which, remember, is me) getting exactly what he paid for.
I am not saying that paying for something that has previously been free is a better option. I am saying it is better to have the option to chose.
I am also saying that getting paid to alpha/beta test is not the way it is supposed to be. I am also saying that getting free access to alpha/beta is not the way it is supposed to be. And while the past is often a very good indicator of the future, an argument that says something is supposed to be the way it is because it's been customary to do it that way in the past is not compelling to me.
To me, there is far better good for both producers and consumers in the for-pay model than harm.
I have a tangential question for you -- are you opposed to crowdsourcing such as Kickstarter? I see paying for alpha/beta access as very much a crowd-sourcing, but with an existing product that is typically much further down the road than many Kickstarter projects. And yes, I have kickstarted a project that I'd define as unfinished on release: Traveller 5.
I think Early Access is a boon to both developers and gamers, if labelled as such. There are still some concerns, as others have mentioned, regarding replacing actual dedicated testers with those that buy in. I also think it leaves room for some developers to later prematurely claim the an early access title as officially released, and their early access sale satisfied, when they just continue to modify the same game and re-release it as a full-price sequel a short time later. I've not had this happen to me with my early access purchases yet, but I'm sure it has happened somewhere. The vast majority of the indie early access games I've followed have been dedicated to improvements over the long term, and haven't pulled this switch-a-roo.
As for the state of proper dedicated Beta Testing these days, I'm not sure it's doing so well. There are a few really dedicated beta testers out there, but even the best can get pretty burned out after a stretch of volunteer beta testing. Combined with the latest tendency for some game companies to not even give testers a release copy of the game they are grinding away on, or perhaps a small discount, it doesn't bode well. For example, my last closed beta testing experience (CK2) was a good one as far as the testers hammering away and finding issues. But we were given no release copy - we still had to buy the retail one. Sure, we had the Beta version but it had all the testing junk enabled, among other differences. After testing burnout set in a couple-three months into the beta, I felt like I wasn't gonna get anything worthwhile out of efforts so my testing trailed off. That's how it went for many of the other testers, I'm sure, and the word that we'd not get a release copy didn't help motivate. I suppose such methods are based on bringing in new batches of testers on a regular basis either way. I don't plan on doing any more closed betas where I will still have to purchase the game afterwards. More preferable to just buy into a cheaper Early Access or wait until after it's released since we'll have to buy it anyway. At the same time, these things still need dedicated closed beta testers. It's not early access that threatens such things these days, but the lack of reward for participating in them.
Ultimately it's all about choice, of course. The fact that there IS such a choice is compelling, but that doesn't guarantee anything.
I avoid Early Access games on Steam just because if I'm shelling out cash I want a finished, working game, not one that's half-assed or barely functional. I also want support for it and updates would always be nice if they add something good to the game. I'll buy expansions if the game is fun (e.g. Civ V) and gives me many hours of enjoyment.
If a game appeals to me, I don't want to get disappointed playing a buggy mess and then be turned off to it later, regardless of how much positiveness it ends up getting in the gaming press or how much you guys go nuts over it. If my own experience is bad, that's going to weigh more on my choice, obviously.
That said, if you like buying Early Access games, so be it. You're an adult, you know what you're getting into when you send them cash. You know you're taking a chance on it, and you should know what rewards, if any, the devs are offering for you to get a stake in the game before it's truly ready for release. I doubt there's one gamer among us whom has never felt screwed at some point by a game company, but then again, I doubt there's one among us whom has not felt exponentially pleased by a game.
The Early Access games on Steam are, for me, like defendants in a murder trial. I look at them with a GREAT deal of suspicion and apathy, thinking, "yeah, right, you're telling the truth." There is a part of me, though, that says, "Okay, give it a chance, let's see where it leads." So, while I'm immediately predisposed to not buying an Early Access game, I'll keep an eye on anything that looks interesting. I've not yet pulled the trigger on one, but that doesn't mean I might not down the road sometime.
As with anyone, if the rewards look like they will outweigh the cost I have to put into it, then I might jump in. For Alpha/Beta games, that gap is much wider.
I don't disparage anyone for wanting to jump on board with those types of games. I don't disparage devs for offering them in the first place. Hell, if there's a demand, there will be a supply, whether or not all of us think that's a wise move on the part of gamers to put up with it. For me, the rewards usually don't look like they'll outweigh the costs...but that's just me, and things may be different with others. So be it.
I can't recall a time I've ever felt screwed by a game company, but that is probably a matter of connotation. First of all, I find it at least conceptually difficult to blame someone else for a choice I made (giving the company money).
I've certainly been disappointed by all kinds of stuff; the play of final products, feature decisions, platform decision, graphics, lack of reminders to stop and eat occasionally, etc., etc. But I have yet to personally experience anything remotely involving fraud or objective dishonesty, which is sort of the baseline requirement for someone to screw me*.
Some of this comes from a belief that entertainment cannot possibly be a negative experience. It doesn't mean that it'll be a positive experience, but really, the worst any piece of entertainment can be, for me at least, is not as entertaining as I would have liked. So it can waste my time, but I choose to do so many things that waste my time that I can hardly blame someone else for producing content that I may decide I don't like. I may not go back to that source of entertainment again of course. (I gave up on KSR after the Mars trilogy, but am giving 2312 a shot as it appears between that and Shaman he may be back on the top of his game). But when I choose to see Highlander III after II, it's nobody's fault but mine.
I guess what I'm saying is entertainment is a choice, I have a hard time blaming anyone else for my choice. Well, that's not entirely true. It is entirely too easy for me to blame someone else for my choices or circumstances. But I know it's wrong.
Wait, no, I totally take all that back. Iain Banks completely screwed me with his sudden death from cancer.
(*Under-boobage: It's the other baseline requirement.)
Early access and open beta is is vital for strategy game developers and indie devs as well. Having a thousand players look at and play your game while it's in development and give their feedback means not only will a better game result, but players can influence the gameplay and game features. Typically, anyone entering an early access or beta will get the game for less than the release price and get updated right through the process to the actual release.
If you don't want to beta test an unfinished game, then don't! It's perfectly fine to wait for release and get a finished game. And no dev wants to remain in open access or beta forever. You won't get any media reviews until you do an official release.
I applaud Matrix for doing this. The result will be better games for their community.
Chris--
Hey guys
there's obviously a broad range of opinions on this, but I wanted to give you both our thinking and make clear the specifics of the scheme.
The EAP has launched at a far earlier stage than a normal beta (or even alpha) release. It's pretty much as early as is possible without there being so many rough edges that it wouldn't be possible for players to look past them! Out key desire is to allow players to give us feedback on all areas of the game early enough to really make a difference (as someone said, at beta we are generally looking more at balance and bugs than at major changes). And even with the limited announce we have already seen people making great suggestions and giving feedback, some of which will end in additions or changes that we probably would not have considered without it.
The EAP we are running for BA is pretty straightforward - it's the same price as the final release, and of course includes a final version of the game when it releases. And you also get a number of cosmetic bonuses at release which will mark you out as having been part of the development process.
There are absolutely people for whom this holds no attraction, while there are others who will hugely enjoy being part of all the choices and compromises necessary to get a game to completion. I've been especially happy to see people who have never posted before giving their feedback even before the EAP had been live 24 hours. So hopefully people will choose appropriately :)
Cheers
Pip
well I'm definitely no fan of early access at the same price as release. I think of your going to work for them, there should be an incentive
Quote from: JudgeDredd on February 12, 2014, 01:01:36 PM
well I'm definitely no fan of early access at the same price as release. I think of your going to work for them, there should be an incentive
But we don't want to penalise people who aren't interested in seeing the game early either. That's why we have bonuses for EAP participation, but they don't affect the game in a substantial way - they're really just a digital campaign medal so other players know that they've
seen things man :) FYI the EAP bonuses are a special title on MP challenges, and a special texture set version which only you (or, online, people playing you) will see on your units.
Cheers
Pip
I see your point - but disagree with it.
As this thread has deliberated - it's about choice. Offer it early access, get some money in the door and feedback, buig finding etc...and get all that for a reduced price - the early access opportunists are taking the gamble - there's very little if anything out there about the game, the mechanics, etc...so a gamble on whether you'd like it or not, nevermind whether it'll be finished or not!
But as I'm going to be helping you find bugs and get it ready for release, I want an incentive...and that incentive is not a badge or a mention in a manual...it's a reduced price. I have paid early for several games, some Alpha and some Beta. I don't mind doing so because each of them was reduced in price.
If you want to wait and get that "almost" bug free game, fine...you'll pay full price for a full product...but the early adopters are not getting a full product...they are working with you to help it along.
I don't mind the concept - as I've said in this thread - and I don't even mind that you aren't offering it as a cheaper option. If that's working for you and getting money in the door - more power to the people that want to pay up.
Me - I will not subscribe to a game, at full price, when it's in Alpha or Beta. To me, I'll be doing some work there and as such, some sort of monetary value should be placed on that.
I don't mind paying for beta access for games that are pretty much complete anyway (I bought into the Mount and Blade beta that was basically already a playable game), or where the devs have a great track record; where I feel they will actually finish the project.
If devs want me to help them test, or to fund their project...they are going to have to give me something. A good price break for the end product usually is good for me.
Its is kind of funny...in the old days (a few years ago), the gaming community jumped all over any dev who released an incomplete product (Stardock's Elemental). Now we gladly pay for an incomplete product, we don't seem to care if they are ever finished (Kerbal Space Program), and we love the devs who grant us the privilege.
the above posters pretty much echo my thoughts. I don't mind buying early access and i've bought into 5 alpha's at reduced price,none of which are wargames. I just don't think wargames are something i would buy into early...especially at full price. The burnout factor would be an issue for me and the surprises ruined. Unless your talking about Flashpoint or Command Ops where the AI plays out differently each time i would play a campaign/scenario a couple times and move on. At the end of the day as long as people know what their getting into it's their choice......and choice is good.
I do have one question.....are the early adopters able to play multiplayer, i know BA is big multiplayer draw for alot of people.
Quote from: IanC on February 10, 2014, 04:38:37 PM
I don't pay to test either. However, if companies want to do this - fine. It means we find out early on how crap it is -or not.
If the game is finished and good by release - even better. If not, we already have a heads-up on whether to avoid it.
I completely agree. Well said.
Quote from: ArizonaTank on February 12, 2014, 01:57:37 PM
Its is kind of funny...in the old days (a few years ago), the gaming community jumped all over any dev who released an incomplete product (Stardock's Elemental). Now we gladly pay for an incomplete product, we don't seem to care if they are ever finished (Kerbal Space Program), and we love the devs who grant us the privilege.
The
Kerbal Space Program example is a bad one. They are still regularly adding new features so it's not something that's been left to wither and die. They also still manage to keep it quite playable in the meantime, too. Technically it should be called an "Alpha" if it currently isn't, just because it's not feature complete. It's in a better condition and sees more progress than a number of others, however.
I'm curious as to which Early Access games people have bought into here and been disappointed with. Either when it was claimed to be officially released, withered on the vine, or was quickly followed by a new full-priced version that was obviously just an update of the same game shortly afterward.
I recall Franchise Hockey Manager being one of these disappointments, but I'm pretty sure there have been others that let people down here at official release, or seem like they were left for dead. Which ones?
One has to wonder, will this lead to more unfinished games? Games use to be canceled and never released but, now with developers selling even early Alpha releases, it makes one wonder.
A publisher would have a real hard time canceling any game that was sold as an early release.
I did this once with Stardock's Elemental, I even spent quit a bit of time Beta testing, documenting bugs, sending in saved game files, etc. all for not, Stardock just didn't listen!!! Even though they did the right thing in the end, I'll never buy another Stardock product or any type of early buy in from anyone.
Quote from: SgtRock on February 12, 2014, 02:59:48 PM
One has to wonder, will this lead to more unfinished games? Games use to be canceled and never released but, now with developers selling even early Alpha releases, it makes one wonder.
A publisher would have a real hard time canceling any game that was sold as an early release.
I'm pretty sure one Kickstarter folded before they got much going. However, it was probably early enough for people to get refunded..?
Quote from: IanC on February 10, 2014, 04:38:37 PM
I don't pay to test either. However, if companies want to do this - fine. It means we find out early on how crap it is -or not.
If the game is finished and good by release - even better. If not, we already have a heads-up on whether to avoid it.
I don't think this is true, although it should be! ;D
Just look at Stardock's Elemental, everyone who asked was told to wait before buying but, few listened! Now look at Elder Scrolls On-line MMO, I've not heard anyone (beta players) have many good things to say about it yet, that's not stopping the pre-orders!
Quote from: Nefaro on February 12, 2014, 02:51:58 PM
Quote from: ArizonaTank on February 12, 2014, 01:57:37 PM
Its is kind of funny...in the old days (a few years ago), the gaming community jumped all over any dev who released an incomplete product (Stardock's Elemental). Now we gladly pay for an incomplete product, we don't seem to care if they are ever finished (Kerbal Space Program), and we love the devs who grant us the privilege.
I'm curious as to which Early Access games people have bought into here and been disappointed with. Either when it was claimed to be officially released, withered on the vine, or was quickly followed by a new full-priced version that was obviously just an update of the same game shortly afterward.
I recall Franchise Hockey Manager being one of these disappointments, but I'm pretty sure there have been others that let people down here at official release, or seem like they were left for dead. Which ones?
Well, I am disappointed with Starforge Alpha, but not via any of the fails you describe. I basically paid $4.99 to get alpha access as a demo for me. The game sounded like it had some interesting elements to me (open world exploration), so I dropped a frappucino to see what it was like. It's not for me; I knew that was a decent chance when I bought in. I just checked, it's been updated recently, so it hasn't failed on the, ha! I got your coffee now I'm heading for hills front, either.
sgt rock, take a look at kickstarter to get some facts -- it might actually answer some of the fearmongering you keep attempting. I'm sure you're not interested in just fearmongering, so please consider that much of your assertions are hyperbole and assumptive inventions. Each and every kickstarter is required to list the risk of investment, ie what might happen to cause us not to deliver on what we're saying. If you don't like the risk OR DO NOT THINK THE DEVELOPERS ADEQUATELY DEFINE THE RISK, I guarantee you the nanny state will not force you to invest.
And finally, while you are at it, please describe an objective standard by which all games can be judged as finished or unfinished. Because otherwise, what you are fearing is that you might invest in a game pre launch that you do not consider finished on release. Once again, what you and I consider finished or unfinished are very likely to differ without that objective standard.
Quote from: -budd- on February 12, 2014, 02:30:21 PM
the above posters pretty much echo my thoughts. I don't mind buying early access and i've bought into 5 alpha's at reduced price,none of which are wargames. I just don't think wargames are something i would buy into early...especially at full price. The burnout factor would be an issue for me and the surprises ruined. Unless your talking about Flashpoint or Command Ops where the AI plays out differently each time i would play a campaign/scenario a couple times and move on. At the end of the day as long as people know what their getting into it's their choice......and choice is good.
I do have one question.....are the early adopters able to play multiplayer, i know BA is big multiplayer draw for alot of people.
Yes, the EAP has MP running already to let people better assess the new randomly generated skirmish map feature. I've seen various games popping in and out of the challenge list, so people are already playing online.
Cheers
Pip
Quote from: SgtRock on February 12, 2014, 03:17:51 PM
Quote from: IanC on February 10, 2014, 04:38:37 PM
I don't pay to test either. However, if companies want to do this - fine. It means we find out early on how crap it is -or not.
If the game is finished and good by release - even better. If not, we already have a heads-up on whether to avoid it.
I don't think this is true, although it should be! ;D
Just look at Stardock's Elemental, everyone who asked was told to wait before buying but, few listened! Now look at Elder Scrolls On-line MMO, I've not heard anyone (beta players) have many good things to say about it yet, that's not stopping the pre-orders!
Seriously, what are you proposing here? Not letting people make mistakes of their own volition? Do you understand how bizarre your arguments are getting now? Of course people are capable of making stupid decisions despite having any and all information available to them to make a different one. That's nothing new to gaming.
I think this is one of those rare issues where both sides are right.
Yes, early-access revenue undoubtedly will help many game developers bring games to market that otherwise might not make it.
And, yes, consumers can buy or not as they choose.
But, yes, the trend probably will mean that more games will be released and never finished. The ability to collect revenue for an unfinished game undeniably lessens the incentive to finish the game. Human nature and all that.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on February 12, 2014, 01:01:36 PM
well I'm definitely no fan of early access at the same price as release. I think of your going to work for them, there should be an incentive
Agreed a 100%. Without an incentive beyond useless badges, makes no sense to me. I still support the concept of eap but have no interest paying full price to support it. It would take a must have game for me to even consider it.
What find interesting, wasn't their other eap space game released at a special price? So why is the philosophy different for this one?
^I would hazard a guess that the formula for BA is tried and tested and a lot of people like it, ergo, people would be willing to pay full whack for early access - as they know they'll like it.
With the space game, the formula wasn't about - new stuff - so a bit more unknown.
Just guessing though
Quote from: JudgeDredd on February 12, 2014, 06:25:39 PM
^I would hazard a guess that the formula for BA is tried and tested and a lot of people like it, ergo, people would be willing to pay full whack for early access - as they know they'll like it.
With the space game, the formula wasn't about - new stuff - so a bit more unknown.
Just guessing though
Likely true, but in his response seemed to imply they didn't want to penalize anyone, but I guess that is ok with the other game:)
Quote from: Nefaro on February 12, 2014, 02:51:58 PM
Quote from: ArizonaTank on February 12, 2014, 01:57:37 PM
Its is kind of funny...in the old days (a few years ago), the gaming community jumped all over any dev who released an incomplete product (Stardock's Elemental). Now we gladly pay for an incomplete product, we don't seem to care if they are ever finished (Kerbal Space Program), and we love the devs who grant us the privilege.
The Kerbal Space Program example is a bad one. They are still regularly adding new features so it's not something that's been left to wither and die. They also still manage to keep it quite playable in the meantime, too. Technically it should be called an "Alpha" if it currently isn't, just because it's not feature complete. It's in a better condition and sees more progress than a number of others, however.
I beg to differ. I think Kerbal Space Program is one of the best examples. I have it, I like it, but it isn't finished.... While the team is diligently and regularly adding updates...at the rate they are going, I wonder if it will ever be truly finished. I am not saying they are doing anything wrong, but the fact remains, I have paid for an incomplete product and I'm not mad. If Elemental had released today, and made it an Alpha release, the market would have praised them. Attitudes have changed in a short period of time. Who knows...maybe legalization of pot can't be far off....:)
I think Arizona tank has hit on the key point here, that things have changed dramatically in the past few years. These new business models are, to my mind, a huge advantage to the customer. They can choose to fund a project themselves through projects on kickstarter. They can chose to participate in the process and affect the outcome of the game. They can wait until the game is out there in full release before purchasing, as they've always done, but still be better informed by those who participate in early access and discuss it in forums like this one.
These new models are a huge advantage to the developer, too. Digital distribution removes the necessity of having to use a large publisher who will end up with most of the profits. Indie devs can create games that are more unusual or for niche audiences that would never get greenlighted by a large publisher. Early access means devs get critical feedback and revenue earlier in the development process.
So it seems like a win-win to me.
QuoteThese new business models are, to my mind, a huge advantage to the customer.
Yes this will lead to more games but, will it lead to better games? We are likely get a lot of half finished games.
Software Developers are some of the worst people on the planet when planing how much money & how much time a finished project will we take!!! ;D We are likely get games of a much small scope/scale and lot of same old, same old because small developers can't afford to fail.
Just look at computer wargames, it's been still suck in the hex/board game design era for the past 30 years because very few developers have the time/money/resources to take a risk on something new.
Quote from: SgtRock on February 14, 2014, 12:30:12 PM
QuoteThese new business models are, to my mind, a huge advantage to the customer.
Yes this will lead to more games but, will it lead to better games? We are likely get a lot of half finished games.
I think variations of the pay-as-you-go model are already leading to much better games. ARMAIII probably would never haver recovered from all the stuff that went wrong if it had not been able to build things back while selling access to the alpha (which was a fun game if nothing like the current game). BoS is going to be a fantastic game and it has an extensive early-access plan. So it looks like the model works fine for certain kinds of projects -- in this case niche simulations with relatively small audiences. But those are the games I care about and they are doing well with early access.
Quote from: SgtRock on February 14, 2014, 12:30:12 PM
Yes this will lead to more games but, will it lead to better games? We are likely get a lot of half finished games.
<shrug> Probably no more than you were getting before. Now you'll just be forewarned. If more are made, and the percentage of good to bad remains the same, the net result is more good games.
Quote
Software Developers are some of the worst people on the planet when planing how much money & how much time a finished project will we take!!! ;D
Yup. But there's a reason for that. Software development is a messy business. Games even more so. You have spend a boatload of money on art and engineering before you even know if the core game is any good. You may have to do several iterations of the UI. And strategy games are the most complex of all. So really, anyone who chooses to make strategy games--the most complex games with a fairly small market to sell to--is taking a huge risk. Usually they do it because they love these games and are passionate about making them. It's be a hellluva lot easier to make a puzzle platformer or an FPS.
Quote
We are likely get games of a much small scope/scale and lot of same old, same old because small developers can't afford to fail.
That has not been my experience. Since these new business models have emerged, (plus some superb tools like Unity), I've seen some amazing games that never would have been made previously. And while failing doesn't help any business, small games are far less risky than huge AAA games. When there is $20-$50 million or more on the line you can bet the people with the purse strings are going to play it safe.
Quote
Just look at computer wargames, it's been still suck in the hex/board game design era for the past 30 years because very few developers have the time/money/resources to take a risk on something new.
It's actually audience size. Serious wargamers are a niche market. No developer is going spend more than they can possibly get back from an audience that will only purchase X number of units even if the game is very successful. The only options are to increase the audience size or increase the amount the developer can earn, and reinvest in a game budget. These new biz models do the second thing.
Chris--
At the end user stand piont:
1) You can beta test for Matrix. When the game goes live, they give you a discount. Then you buy the game at less than retail price.
2) You participate in early access, you buy it at discount, and get to contribute to beta testing.
I see no major difference. Except that for 1, you can try the game without paying anything. Even if Matrix gives you the discount, you are free to not use it and not buy the game.
Of course, early access at or above retail price is harder to swallow for me.
Quote from: SgtRock on February 14, 2014, 12:30:12 PM
QuoteThese new business models are, to my mind, a huge advantage to the customer.
Yes this will lead to more games but, will it lead to better games? We are likely get a lot of half finished games.
"Finished software" is an unattainable dream. Today, Software is not a commodity...it is a service.
Before the internet, distributing a patch is not easy and most "finished games" that end up having major flaws (and unimplemented features) don't get fixed.
These days, developers are expected to be online even after release to fix problems and support the users.
Alpha, Beta, Gold, Finished or not, it's all the same to me. It is up to the consumer when they want to participate.
Quote"Finished software" is an unattainable dream. Today, Software is not a commodity...it is a service.
Bingo!
QuoteFinished software" is an unattainable dream. Today, Software is not a commodity...it is a service.
Making/updating software is a service, unfinished software (defined features implemented and working) is a product!
There's a big difference between unfinished software that has (missing/deleted) features and software that has completed features & polished. No matter what the software product, customers always want more, just add this, change that, etc.
Lordz/Slitherine has already produced games with Panzer Corp engine, so there is likely little risk, the bigger issue here is more and more developers seem to think selling unfinished products with no guaranty, is a good business practice. Selling demos is coming next, just wait and see! ::)
Quote from: SgtRock on February 20, 2014, 03:15:12 PM
Selling demos is coming next, just wait and see! ::)
Don't the creators of that tank sim already do that? Sell monthly 'licenses' to check out their expensive game?