So Matrix/Slitherine is now selling Beta's

[MuzzyDev]

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--

[PipFromSlitherine]

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

[JudgeDredd]

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

[PipFromSlitherine]

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

[JudgeDredd]

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.

[ArizonaTank]

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.   

[-budd-]

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.

[airboy]

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.

[Nefaro]

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?

[SgtRock]

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.







   

[Nefaro]

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..?

[SgtRock]

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!

[skeptical.platypus]

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.

[PipFromSlitherine]

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

[skeptical.platypus]

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.