Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Founders, Alpha/Beta and Early Access....
serialMMOist
Member Posts: 88
I am struggling with something. Why do some people view Founder's packs and early access into Alpha/Beta a bad thing?
For the life of me I cannot figure it out. So I am opening this thread up because I am a proud backer of things great and small and I struggle with the idea that some people think its a bane to gaming.
If you are going to reply, itd be great if you'd explain yourself too. I am seriously hoping to get some insite on this.
Comments
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
I'd don't "hate" it, but when you give companies money to just play alphas and betas, then they get monye upfront the the need to make the game better starts to drop. it's not even just getting inot betas, and pre-orders, there's laso things like season passes, whihc "promise" being cheaper in the long run.
It's basically the whole "gives us money now", before games are even released. Goes for mmos, single players, etc.
My main problem with the idea of paying for access to alpha or beta is how its changed the focus of the testing phases.
Game companies are using what used to be a measured testing phase to get the bugs out and polish the game as a marketing tool and the games being released show it. The sooner companies sell acess to their games, the crappier they launch.
It is the bane of gaming because games have been developed for decades without them and have done just as well if not better.
No game, none, zero, ziltch, has ever been markedly improved by giving early access to anyone.
Just look at all the games out now and coming out soon withe early access (free or otherwise)... would you say they are the cream of the crop... the best that they could ever be? Did or will they become something awesome just because a bunch of people paid to play the game early?
The answer is a resounding NO. Early access doesn't make games better, it just shortens the time you actually spend in them when they do get released.
Basically do certain companies sell rather crappy games with it while they hype up the game, people who don't really research the game before signing up then spends 2 months here complaining...
Also, selling beta and Alpha access ain't good because many people assume that since they pay for it the game will be in a lot better shape than it actually is. Alpha testers should really be paid professionals while beta testers should at least be fans that know that beta testing is a voluntary work that will better the game when it's released, not something you just play for fun (even if it can be enjoyable at times).
Founder packs and kick starters is fine as long as you actually research what you buy.
for games like AA no, do not pay for alpha or beta because it is not actually alpha or even beta the game has been out for a year in asia and russia so its trion trick to suck money out of fanboys.
for games like transformers universe which is actually going through alpha , yes do it and support it if you want to play good game hopefully.
I must admit I was surprised that game testing was actualy a real job when I first heard it. I hear what you are saying and i agree however I just thinking if handled the way Landmark/SOE it can be a great boon instead of paying just a few testers.
The game is in beta. I was invited to it.
For me common sense say's its a bad idea. Game companies used to test their own games. Now they have the balls to ask players for money to do what they should be doing themselves. To many gamers with no common sense.
Again I need to refer to SOW and Landmark. Its been quite the opposite with that community. Maybe there is a tidal shift in how things are being done? Standards are going to be set I believe.
Another amazing communities that seem to benefiting are
- TUG
- Gloria Victis
Beta Testing hasn't been a paid "job" in a long while, unless I'm in the dark. At some point it simply became chic to be a beta tester and that is where the decline and degradation of the process came in.
I see no problems with selling Alpha and Beta access, but the reality is that it can actually tarnish your game significantly if you don't go to market with something that's passable as a game. So, essentially, they need to front-load a lot of testing with in-house testers (which are basically McDonald's rejects, and get paid less too). Problem is that anyone worth their salt as a tester isn't going to test games for 20 grand a year unless they have aspirations of moving up quickly, and mom and dad will let them stay at home for a little longer. On top of that, the new alpha/beta crowd feel entitled to something that's working, which is a contradiction of the idea of testing. Additionally, these people aren't there to report bugs, they're there to sample or exploit bugs, one or the other. The sampler will simply move on and say the game sucks and they can't believe they invested in it. The exploiter will wait for release and allow a game to release so they can run their exploit for as long as they can until they're found out or it's patched in production.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I must say I disagree. Once again point and case is Landmark.
But also in other games there have been hirings/volunteers from testers that paid into betas/alphas and fell in love with them. Enough to for go pay and help. That I love seeing
Yes I am seeing this alot.
The most hilarious part of this thread is that people compare the type of "testing" done in paid alphas or the "week before launch" Beta to actual alpha and beta testing.
By the time a game is into what we get to see as alpha its more likely nearing an end beta. The beta events are just marketing for the accepted release candidate (look that up if you dont know what an RC build is) and a means of testing network structure.
If you think that by buying into an Alpha you are putting actual testers out of work or doing their job you are just insulting actual QA professionals the world over. Believe me what 99.99% of us do in alphas and betas is NOT testing, games companies know this and if you think their QA is based around this you are deluding your selves.
Its more like user acceptance testing and profiling by the developer/publisher than anything. But go ahead keep screaming about "paying to do someones jerb" if nothing else it gives me a good laugh.
CLOSED betas and CLOSED alphas not the kind you can buy into but the ones that take place behind closed doors for the most part that is where most usable data comes from. Internal testing is structured, QA professionals will undertake the same task, 100's of times using dev commands to speed up the process and try every way they can think of to break something.
At MOST paid/open/pre-order alphas and betas might help show an attentive dev they missed something, but the fact that the vast majority of releases do not change between these "tests" and launch should show you how little they are actually used for "testing" purposes.
Basically, Gamers have been duped into giving money for games that are NOT finished, ready to launch, and the privilege of working for the company AND paying them for that privilege.
There is one positive side, but I am unsure of its validity. Charging for access sets a hurdle so that players with real interest may be testing the games. This is the theory, of course. Not sure how it works in reality, though. Oh! And players can now say "I was in X game from Beta on..." and feel like they have more clout with their views, which most other gamers will laugh at, especially when that access is bought.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
so? If the customers are willing, and they are having some fun, then what is the problem?
No one forces anyone to participate.
What do you get for what you paid. Take AA entry price of 50 bucks, what you pay for a finished game. I dont care if the top package is 300 bucks. Someone wants to pay that, thats their dime. With AA its a fully tested game thats just adding english, what what value do I get for 50 bucks. Not much. Your early access will last a few months, maybe 6.
Landmark on the other hand knows its not a done product and your starter package for the game is 19.99 and its also fully refundable at any point you dont want to take part any more. If they are going to get me doing error reports and pay to play, better be fair with the price. Also you take into account the payment model you have to start looking at what you are paying for.
Exactly.
Its become more fun testing half finished games that you have hopes for rather than playing finished launched crap games. I would rather see a game in alpha, with much to come and have none of the players involved that are about race to the end or telling people L2P.
Yes totally. In some cases it is warranted though. If you consider Landmark Alpha > Beta it is much different already. But when they start thinking their opinions are more valued since "I've been here since Alpha" its removed any positive aspect from the progression of Landmark.
I don't really care one way or the other. Paying for early access is just a marketing ploy to get more money, and if people want to pay it, then fine. However let's not confuse this with actual testing of a product. Alpha/beta have a specific meaning in the software world, and have really nothing to do with the early access people are paying for games.
I do think that it is strange that so many people "pre-order" and then ask for a refund.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
guys!
a few observations here.
1. Zenimax which is a non-kickstarter company is likely the largest most powerful toxic to the gaming industry company who is currently trolling a kickstqrter company. So I hold no allegiance whatsoever to so call 'legit' companies.
2. I am currently playing Space Engineers and loving the game. Although the game is not out, it could be, its pretty much a bugless highly polished game. Additionally, the developer puts in new features BASED ON FEEDBACK which wouldnt be the case if we waited.
3. In programming this is an agile approach. Many useable releases instead of one large release thus allowing for feedback and alterations. The gaming industry is now taking this model and pushing it closer to the customer instead of just having it behind the scenes. This is why games like EvE is planing 10 releases a year now instead of just 2.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
well, for me there are several things to consider if i buy a founder package or not. founder packages are, please correct me if i'm wrong, only a marketing tool for upcoming f2p games. instead of releasing a retail version of a game with a cashshop and make it b2p (like gw2), the companies try to make much more money upfront.
for example: trion wants to sell me a founder package for 150$. in this package there is nothing of real value. the game will be f2p, so the client, the software is not included in the 150$. in a retail version of the game the client would be worth 50$. 50$ to pay the development costs. that would be fine with me. but in this package we 'only' get alpha access, armor, some stones and a titel, thats all. and lets remember ... alpha means testing the game. so we have to pay the developer/publisher to test their game and don't get nothing in return. the companies are hopeing for the stupidity of the customers.
the next thing is, that i don't even get the real important information of the game .... the payment model. will their be a premium account offer (freemium model) and what will i get for my monthly fee, what items are in the cashshop, how much will they cost me and for what do i need them in the game. worst case is that i spend 150$ for a game with a p2w cashshop or that i have to drop much more than the usal 15$ monthly fee in it to play it in a decend way. and when i don't like what i get, whats with a refund?
founder packages and their virtual goods are the best way for a company with a f2p product (like neverwinter or archeage) to grab money to refinance their investments in an early stage. in case of archeage trion would like to break even with their buy of the publishing rights.
and to bring up a thesis: their aren't any differences between recently released f2p and p2p game any more. f2p games hide the retail box selling of a p2p game behind the marketing word 'founder package'. the same people who can afford or are willing to buy a founder package are the same ones that would most likely buy a retail version of the same game. these people are the current 20% who are spending money in a f2p game so the rest 80% can try it 'for free' and maybe get hooked enough to pay a monthly fee or for some neccessary items in the cashshop they need at least for the endgame. its all an illusion.
and for those guys who still belive that f2p is the solution ... do the math: how many players does a 50 million f2p game like neverwinter (development plus pr-budget) after release with a ARPPU (average revenue per paying user) of 20$ per month need to even their costs? lets say they have constant 2 million active players (very unlikely but who cares). only 20% of them are paying for the game with 20$. that 1.6 million per month and after 30 months they have their investment back, but every month they have to spend money on further development, administration and traffic. no way the could ever get their money back. but with a founder packages for an average of 50$ they could make profit very very early. i read on gamasutra that neverwinter sold nearly 750k million founder packages. well, do this math again and you see my point.
It's a ripoff, basically you tend to be paying for early access with some few misc baubles of no value. I have no problem with "backing" a game an getting some few baubles as recognition like a backer title in the forum or some cosmetic item in game showing your a backer etc
But when I see prices like in Elite Dangerous for example where alpha is 200$ and beta is 150$ then it is pretty clear to me it just selling access to alpha and beta and for a ridiculous amount when traditionally the cost was spending time winning an access key or outright earning one via the games websites for various efforts on your part. In cases like this I just feel like it is a ripoff
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.