So Matrix/Slitherine is now selling Beta's

[Martok]

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. 

[Greybriar]

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.

[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?

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. 

[Greybriar]

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.

[skeptical.platypus]

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.

[SgtRock]

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

[Greybriar]

....Not at all....

QUIT TROLLING!

[skeptical.platypus]

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. 

[skeptical.platypus]

....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.

[Greybriar]

@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.

[Grim.Reaper]

@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......

[skeptical.platypus]

@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.

[Nefaro]

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.

[BanzaiCat]

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.

[skeptical.platypus]

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.)