So Matrix/Slitherine is now selling Beta's

[Queeg]

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.

[Grim.Reaper]

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?

[JudgeDredd]

^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

[Grim.Reaper]

^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:)

[ArizonaTank]

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....:)

[MuzzyDev]

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. 

[SgtRock]

These 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.

[MengJiao]

These 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.

[MuzzyDev]

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.

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.

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.

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--

[jomni]

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.

[jomni]

These 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.

[MuzzyDev]

"Finished software" is an unattainable dream. Today, Software is not a commodity...it is a service.

Bingo!

[SgtRock]

Finished 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!  ::)

[Nefaro]

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?