So Matrix/Slitherine is now selling Beta's

[BanzaiCat]

Not gonna do it, wouldn't be prudent at this time. Paying for beta access is BAD! IT'S BAD!

[mirth]

Well played, sir.

[Grim.Reaper]

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.

[RedArgo]

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.

[Grim.Reaper]

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.

[Arctic Blast]

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.

[-budd-]

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.

[SgtRock]

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.

[skeptical.platypus]

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.

[skeptical.platypus]

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?

[FlickJax]

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.

[Slick Wilhelm]

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?

[Apocalypse 31]

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.

[MengJiao]

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. 

[Philippe]

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].