For MMO's selling Alpha & Beta test access is bad, selling early game access (pre-launch, when the game is basically finished development) is fine. Reasons why selling alpha/beta mmo access is bad:
1) Fanboism. People paid for access & often then fall into the category of yes men & their opinions & feedback are biased & unreliable.
2) Exploits go unreported. Like in Neverwinter paying beta testers found several economy exploits and rather than report them they waited till after launch & profitted from them and several hundred people got banned for this not just a few. Unpaid beta testers are much more likely to report this.
3) bug reporting. If you've been in enough closed alpha or beta tests you see that the quality of bug reports are quite high. The moment that open beta starts you get floods of half added reports & duplicate reports initially. Then they dry up & your back to only CB testers reporting new issues regularly while OB players are just trying to play. Same goes with pay to beta players, they want to play not actually test and would rather winge & rant than report bugs properly.
Who am I to tell people what to spend their money on ? If they think its worth it, and they enjoy it, then so be it. If you disagree with paying to play alpha or beta, then don't pay, just like how I think f2p is wrong, so I don't play any f2p games.....well for now, that might change , depending on the game and the ethics of the company.
I think charging for early access makes total sense, and it is not being done because companies are greedy...it is because players were treating betas like a chance to play for free.
Before the whole charge for early access thing started most players signing up for beta had no desire to actually be real betas testers, they just wanted a chance to play the game. They provide developers with little to no feedback if they get in the betas, they just want to play the game. Given that this mentality is so common, developers need a lot more people in the betas to get enough people who actually understand what being in a beta means...which is expensive. Just makes sense to charge for it.
Besides, it always makes sense to charge for anything if people are willing to pay for it...no amount of disagreement changes that simple truth.
Ultimately debating this question is pointless and a waste of time. If you like it, feel free to pay for early access. If you don't like it...don't.
In most cases I don't think they "should" because unless the game has a very set time table for release and genuinely not enough money to finish without EA funds it is just a large risk that the customer does not need to take.
But lots of people buy into it so regardless of what I think they *should* do they *will* keep selling it I'm sure.
Yes - If the developer listens to the players and works with them to improve the experience
No - If the developers continue on their path and ignore feedback beyond bug fixes (cash grab)
The big names on Steam (Starbound, DayZ, etc) and potentially EQNL, would fall into the Yes category for me, everything else (the majority), fall into the No category.
Look, as long as people buy early access, developers should and will sell early access. This is From the publisher and/or developer point of view.
As a gamer however, I really dislike the way games are being offered nowadays. There was a time, when you bought a game, you received 100% of the content the developers created. If the game was succesful enough, you'd see an expansion, yay! But now you have the game (most of the time unfinished/early access) + Seasonpass and/or DLC + Micro transactions.
Early access like ESO is doing, start a few days early, that's fine. I will NEVER pay to have access to an alpha or beta test. The last time I played from alpha, I saw so many great features come and go that the final product was just boring and dull. I had seen it all already, saw what could have been, what should have been, and what was at one point but had to be "balanced." If anything, sell me access at $5, and if I want to purchase for release, put that $5 toward the price.
If you need to buy into a alpha/beta than go for it, it's your money to waste. I personally have done it twice, for Arma 3 Alpha (it was cheap to buy into alpha since you got the full release of the game after anyways) and Rift which was more of a pre-order + beta access + 1 week start before everyone else ( I saw so much potential in the game and I got my enjoyment out of it).
Now after I have seen the state of how dev's are willing to release games (payed beta or not) AKA Battlefield 4, I am not willing anymore to pay just to try a game. I have learned my lesson and will try to keep my visa in my wallet and look for gameplay/review on youtube.
I was a beta tester back in the 90's for several games. Back then one had to have experience at being a beta tester, knowing what to loo for that may be a problem and reporting these issues to the developers.
Today There are few Beta testers that know what is expected of them, these companies that put forth paid access for Beta are taking advantage of the community. Truth be told Many of the games that have used this Pay to test model have really sucked up the funds and screwed the players on content.
In my opinion the pay to have access to Beta testing has been a modern excersise in stupidity. Most of the ones who pay to gain access to the beta do it to be able to play the game early, test whether they like it and for the most part bail out when they find its not to their liking.
This is not what a Beta test is for. It has been abused by the industry and the players that dont know what it means to be a beta tester are being taken advantage of.
If game players allow themselves to be taken advantage of then they will be. Game companies are no different than any other business. Selling alpha access is the reverse effect of what game companies pay people for. Instead of paying Beta/Alpha-Testers to play their game, which early alpha actually is, and provide feedback the game companies are now asking the players to pay to access these games and still provide the feedback for free.
There is a difference between funding a project, and paying a company to access a licensed product and provide feedback to improve the product for free.
Perks are the new carrot-dangle on the early access/beta pull but are are not guaranteed. With a MMO it is not impossible of such perks being dwarfed by later content or even the 'best' content. A good example of this be Scarlet Blade, where players were asked to pay $50 to $200 for ' earlybeta'/alpha perks. Perks was a forum badge, a yellow vehicle, and a outfit. When the game was officially launched the content that was introduced to the game ultimately under-cut the items that were in the alpha/beta purchases.
Most players are impulse buyers who wouldn't think a second thought of paying $50, $100 or more for such accesses. It is reason why companies hire professionals to study the market. It is one to fund a project like on kick-starter, but the new sensation on the practice of having consumers pay to access games still in development/not launched that have is another.
So far all the early access games on Steam and Kickstarter games have all been relatively fun and engaging, I can also safely say since all these are indie studios with the exception of EQNL which I paid for the Trailblazer all of these games are of good quality despite being alpha/beta phases. The best of the gmes that truly standout are Starbound, Day Z, Project Zomboid, EQNL, Wasteland 2 , and Shadowrun Returns.
It all comes down to this , if I can pay to get a game early that might not be done, but it is a game I truly want to play Ill pay it, the alternative is to buy big publisher backed games that care more about turning a profit than giving me a engaging, quality immersive game, instead I get a broken mess , Im looking at you EA, or hiding behind NDA's like ESO is doing cause they aren't confident enough in their game to lift the curtain. ESO is look very familiar to how TOR hid behind NDA's as well.
I would normally say that companies should not sell "Beta Access" if it really is only a stress test. That said if the developers are actually interested in what players find to be issues or suggestions as to what could be better than i can't think of a better way to get actual advice thats worth something than to allow players who actually want to play the game to pay for access. You weed out the people who just want something to do for free because they are bored, and you get people who are invested in the game and now want it to be the best it can be.
I took the plunge with Everquest next: Landmark as kind of a shot in the dark because i really hadn't been following it, and really had no idea how the game would actually work. I bought the everything package for $99 because it's been a seriously dry few months for games, and figured what the hell. My first few minutes in the game at the alpha launch was a buggy mess that had a ton of promise. After contending with server crashing, server overpopulation, losing my builds and claims repeatedly, and other bugs, I can say that this week has been incredibly smooth ad it's truly amazing how much the devs have fixed in the span of a week. I have had many of my concerns addressed by fixes that the we the community found and we continue to to help find all the little annoyances that could cripple this game when released.
We have had direct influence on things ranging from simple material requirements, all the way to revamping the claim system. It has been an eye opener for me as a gamer to see this kind of progress in a game's development cycle as early as the alpha. On top of all this the devs are constantly updating the forums and Twitter as things come up or just random conversations with the players. This kind of transparency is unheard of in many betas that i had been a part of dating all the way back to Mech Warrior 2 in the early 90's.
I am a fan of EQNL now and i feel like I am actually a part of the process and not some random bit of data putting a load on a server. The fact that at this stage there is no NDA is awesome too...shows how much transparency they really have.
I trust early access a hell of a lot more than i trust kickstarter. Why? Early access at least shows they are making functional progress, they have something tangible, something substantive that you can enjoy.
Kickstater is just a collage of concept art, often promising a project 3 to 5 years in the future.
If you know you want to play the game, there is no downside to paying for alpha or early beta. Its like bitching about preordering. All youre doing is buying the game first.
Quotations Those Who make peaceful resolutions impossible, make violent resolutions inevitable. John F. Kennedy
Life... is the shit that happens while you wait for moments that never come - Lester Freeman
Lie to no one. If there 's somebody close to you, you'll ruin it with a lie. If they're a stranger, who the fuck are they you gotta lie to them? - Willy Nelson
People have been selling access to beta for online games since Everquest was in beta. You just used to get ripped off a lot more. Either they hand out keys at random and people sell them or they just sell them themselves, no real difference.
Comments
Reasons why selling alpha/beta mmo access is bad:
1) Fanboism. People paid for access & often then fall into the category of yes men & their opinions & feedback are biased & unreliable.
2) Exploits go unreported. Like in Neverwinter paying beta testers found several economy exploits and rather than report them they waited till after launch & profitted from them and several hundred people got banned for this not just a few. Unpaid beta testers are much more likely to report this.
3) bug reporting. If you've been in enough closed alpha or beta tests you see that the quality of bug reports are quite high. The moment that open beta starts you get floods of half added reports & duplicate reports initially. Then they dry up & your back to only CB testers reporting new issues regularly while OB players are just trying to play. Same goes with pay to beta players, they want to play not actually test and would rather winge & rant than report bugs properly.
There is much more but these are my big 3.
I think charging for early access makes total sense, and it is not being done because companies are greedy...it is because players were treating betas like a chance to play for free.
Before the whole charge for early access thing started most players signing up for beta had no desire to actually be real betas testers, they just wanted a chance to play the game. They provide developers with little to no feedback if they get in the betas, they just want to play the game. Given that this mentality is so common, developers need a lot more people in the betas to get enough people who actually understand what being in a beta means...which is expensive. Just makes sense to charge for it.
Besides, it always makes sense to charge for anything if people are willing to pay for it...no amount of disagreement changes that simple truth.
Ultimately debating this question is pointless and a waste of time. If you like it, feel free to pay for early access. If you don't like it...don't.
In most cases I don't think they "should" because unless the game has a very set time table for release and genuinely not enough money to finish without EA funds it is just a large risk that the customer does not need to take.
But lots of people buy into it so regardless of what I think they *should* do they *will* keep selling it I'm sure.
Yes - If the developer listens to the players and works with them to improve the experience
No - If the developers continue on their path and ignore feedback beyond bug fixes (cash grab)
The big names on Steam (Starbound, DayZ, etc) and potentially EQNL, would fall into the Yes category for me, everything else (the majority), fall into the No category.
we should not pay for ANY early access or unfinished game beta tests.
Look, as long as people buy early access, developers should and will sell early access. This is From the publisher and/or developer point of view.
As a gamer however, I really dislike the way games are being offered nowadays. There was a time, when you bought a game, you received 100% of the content the developers created. If the game was succesful enough, you'd see an expansion, yay! But now you have the game (most of the time unfinished/early access) + Seasonpass and/or DLC + Micro transactions.
Op
they can do as they wish and
people can decide for themselves
If you need to buy into a alpha/beta than go for it, it's your money to waste. I personally have done it twice, for Arma 3 Alpha (it was cheap to buy into alpha since you got the full release of the game after anyways) and Rift which was more of a pre-order + beta access + 1 week start before everyone else ( I saw so much potential in the game and I got my enjoyment out of it).
Now after I have seen the state of how dev's are willing to release games (payed beta or not) AKA Battlefield 4, I am not willing anymore to pay just to try a game. I have learned my lesson and will try to keep my visa in my wallet and look for gameplay/review on youtube.
I was a beta tester back in the 90's for several games. Back then one had to have experience at being a beta tester, knowing what to loo for that may be a problem and reporting these issues to the developers.
Today There are few Beta testers that know what is expected of them, these companies that put forth paid access for Beta are taking advantage of the community. Truth be told Many of the games that have used this Pay to test model have really sucked up the funds and screwed the players on content.
In my opinion the pay to have access to Beta testing has been a modern excersise in stupidity. Most of the ones who pay to gain access to the beta do it to be able to play the game early, test whether they like it and for the most part bail out when they find its not to their liking.
This is not what a Beta test is for. It has been abused by the industry and the players that dont know what it means to be a beta tester are being taken advantage of.
Played: UO, LotR, WoW, SWG, DDO, AoC, EVE, Warhammer, TF2, EQ2, SWTOR, TSW, CSS, KF, L4D, AoW, WoT
Playing: The Secret World until Citadel of Sorcery goes into Alpha testing.
Tired of: Linear quest games, dailies, and dumbed down games
Anticipating:Citadel of Sorcery
If game players allow themselves to be taken advantage of then they will be. Game companies are no different than any other business. Selling alpha access is the reverse effect of what game companies pay people for. Instead of paying Beta/Alpha-Testers to play their game, which early alpha actually is, and provide feedback the game companies are now asking the players to pay to access these games and still provide the feedback for free.
There is a difference between funding a project, and paying a company to access a licensed product and provide feedback to improve the product for free.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Yes-There-Is-A-HUGE-Difference-Between-Beta-Testers-and-Alpha-Testers---One-Makes-A-Lot-More-Money!&id=1065242
Perks are the new carrot-dangle on the early access/beta pull but are are not guaranteed. With a MMO it is not impossible of such perks being dwarfed by later content or even the 'best' content. A good example of this be Scarlet Blade, where players were asked to pay $50 to $200 for ' earlybeta'/alpha perks. Perks was a forum badge, a yellow vehicle, and a outfit. When the game was officially launched the content that was introduced to the game ultimately under-cut the items that were in the alpha/beta purchases.
Most players are impulse buyers who wouldn't think a second thought of paying $50, $100 or more for such accesses. It is reason why companies hire professionals to study the market. It is one to fund a project like on kick-starter, but the new sensation on the practice of having consumers pay to access games still in development/not launched that have is another.
So far all the early access games on Steam and Kickstarter games have all been relatively fun and engaging, I can also safely say since all these are indie studios with the exception of EQNL which I paid for the Trailblazer all of these games are of good quality despite being alpha/beta phases. The best of the gmes that truly standout are Starbound, Day Z, Project Zomboid, EQNL, Wasteland 2 , and Shadowrun Returns.
It all comes down to this , if I can pay to get a game early that might not be done, but it is a game I truly want to play Ill pay it, the alternative is to buy big publisher backed games that care more about turning a profit than giving me a engaging, quality immersive game, instead I get a broken mess , Im looking at you EA, or hiding behind NDA's like ESO is doing cause they aren't confident enough in their game to lift the curtain. ESO is look very familiar to how TOR hid behind NDA's as well.
I would normally say that companies should not sell "Beta Access" if it really is only a stress test. That said if the developers are actually interested in what players find to be issues or suggestions as to what could be better than i can't think of a better way to get actual advice thats worth something than to allow players who actually want to play the game to pay for access. You weed out the people who just want something to do for free because they are bored, and you get people who are invested in the game and now want it to be the best it can be.
I took the plunge with Everquest next: Landmark as kind of a shot in the dark because i really hadn't been following it, and really had no idea how the game would actually work. I bought the everything package for $99 because it's been a seriously dry few months for games, and figured what the hell. My first few minutes in the game at the alpha launch was a buggy mess that had a ton of promise. After contending with server crashing, server overpopulation, losing my builds and claims repeatedly, and other bugs, I can say that this week has been incredibly smooth ad it's truly amazing how much the devs have fixed in the span of a week. I have had many of my concerns addressed by fixes that the we the community found and we continue to to help find all the little annoyances that could cripple this game when released.
We have had direct influence on things ranging from simple material requirements, all the way to revamping the claim system. It has been an eye opener for me as a gamer to see this kind of progress in a game's development cycle as early as the alpha. On top of all this the devs are constantly updating the forums and Twitter as things come up or just random conversations with the players. This kind of transparency is unheard of in many betas that i had been a part of dating all the way back to Mech Warrior 2 in the early 90's.
I am a fan of EQNL now and i feel like I am actually a part of the process and not some random bit of data putting a load on a server. The fact that at this stage there is no NDA is awesome too...shows how much transparency they really have.
I trust early access a hell of a lot more than i trust kickstarter. Why? Early access at least shows they are making functional progress, they have something tangible, something substantive that you can enjoy.
Kickstater is just a collage of concept art, often promising a project 3 to 5 years in the future.
If you know you want to play the game, there is no downside to paying for alpha or early beta. Its like bitching about preordering. All youre doing is buying the game first.
Quotations Those Who make peaceful resolutions impossible, make violent resolutions inevitable. John F. Kennedy
Life... is the shit that happens while you wait for moments that never come - Lester Freeman
Lie to no one. If there 's somebody close to you, you'll ruin it with a lie. If they're a stranger, who the fuck are they you gotta lie to them? - Willy Nelson
People have been selling access to beta for online games since Everquest was in beta. You just used to get ripped off a lot more. Either they hand out keys at random and people sell them or they just sell them themselves, no real difference.