Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

How Paid Alpha/Beta can be the best thing to happen to MMOs

NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 8,573

Here is why the paying for beta is a better system if people would smarten up. You get to pick what beta projects you want to be part of. I cant count how many times I wanted to get into a beta project and was never sent an invite. Now when that really awesome game you have been waiting 2-4 years for. You get to step up and say, I want to help develop that game. Drop some money, get in beta and start giving real feedback to the devs. Landmark has been a dream come true for gamers. So many things have been changed about EQN because of feedback we have given in game. 

People who cant get they paid to get into a Alpha or Beta program and want a finished product could end up hurting this new process. In the end game companies may need to shut it down due to internet mob mentality. People crying may take away a tool that can really make the gaming industry better. Buying a voice in a game you care about. How can it get better then that? Shape the game you want to play. This mob internet mentality needs to stop. Gamers need to be better then this as we should be a community supporting the thing we love, games.

So dont buy into every paid alpha and bate that comes around expecting something its not. Alpha cant play like a finished game. Instead buy only into the games you care about. If you cant wait and buy into a beta program just to be the first on your block to try it. Dont nerd rage on the internet as you can end up hurting the gaming industry by removing this tool that could change the games we want to play for the better. 

EDIT: This is before you get into all the money being dropped into crowd funded games that no one bats an eyelash at. This is just a valid way to support a game you want developed. 

«1

Comments

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,826

    That's not what Alpha and Beta are for. No, the whole concept is flawed because it's not about players (smartening up). It's about Developers and publishers wanting to cash in on it.

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 8,573
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer

    That's not what Alpha and Beta are for. No, the whole concept is flawed because it's not about players (smartening up). It's about Developers and publishers wanting to cash in on it.

    Bulldozer treads came from the invention of tanks, something to kill people. Does not change the fact bulldozer are a really great time saver and are helpful. Even if they started out as cash grabs, does not mean we cant use them to better the games we love.

  • FoomerangFoomerang Member UncommonPosts: 5,619

    I think it creates more problems than it fixes. Instead of submitting bug reports, devs are getting an earful on armchair game development.

    At least they are getting paid I guess heh.

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441

    The problem is that you need dedicated alpha and beta testers or the whole process is meaningless.

    And in my opinion the paid alphas and betas get less of those then you get when you screen people who asked to be testers.

    In a perfect world you actually pay people for testing the game and offer a finnished product to your customers. If you can't do that you need to find the best possibly volunteers.

    I tested a bunch of games during the years (sadly without pay) and when I do I actively look for bugs and exploits and report them in. Do you think that is common now with testers who pay to test or do they just try to play and have fun?

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer

    That's not what Alpha and Beta are for. No, the whole concept is flawed because it's not about players (smartening up). It's about Developers and publishers wanting to cash in on it.

    Sure, but you can't really blame them. It's all about exclusivity. Look at things like Coach purse or Guess, or any other elite brand. Basically, they are so exclusive that you pay through the arse for them but, in the end, they really aren't all that different than the mass-produced crap in Wal-mart. 

     

    I vote that they can continue to offer paid beta/alpha access, but access can be revoked at any time, meaning you need to wait until the end of the beta/alpha stage before you can re-access it. The biggest problem is that participation sucks and those who do participate are more interested in exploiting issues in the game than actually helping make the game better. 

    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
    ----------------

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 8,573
    Originally posted by Loke666

    The problem is that you need dedicated alpha and beta testers or the whole process is meaningless.

    And in my opinion the paid alphas and betas get less of those then you get when you screen people who asked to be testers.

    In a perfect world you actually pay people for testing the game and offer a finnished product to your customers. If you can't do that you need to find the best possibly volunteers.

    I tested a bunch of games during the years (sadly without pay) and when I do I actively look for bugs and exploits and report them in. Do you think that is common now with testers who pay to test or do they just try to play and have fun?

    Ya the people that stick around after the start of the paid Alpha/Beta. That core group that paid because they wanted to be there, they give feedback. Im in Landmark and the quality of people giving feedback and playing is a really tight community. They really care about the game and have given feed back to the devs and they have listened. Yes, this process may reap twits but they dont stick around. This process also makes sure everyone who cares about the game and really test it, gets in. 

  • cerulean2012cerulean2012 Member UncommonPosts: 492

    Paying for alpha & beta access is dumb.  It is the developers job to develop & fix games, so paying them for the privledge is wrong.

    Plus how often are developers going to massively change directions on their project because some people who paid them to test the game suggest changes?  Not often.  You are asking developers to throw years of work away because you don't like it.

    No, the real problem is people who do get into alpha/betas who don't help.  People who just want early access and who can not be bother to submit any reports.  These are the problems.

  • mrneurosismrneurosis Member UncommonPosts: 305
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer

    That's not what Alpha and Beta are for. No, the whole concept is flawed because it's not about players (smartening up). It's about Developers and publishers wanting to cash in on it.

    image

     

    I will tell you how awesome this whole idea is. i got invited to beta of WS. It put me off so badly seeing what i was getting into that i cancelled my pre order. Alpha/ betas are nothing but free trial (or used to be seeing how you get charged for it now). The whole purpose of 'test our game' gets defeated when you start charging full price upfront months before release. And on top of that devs manage to convince these players that they are actually making a difference in making the game better. image

  • BattlerockBattlerock Member CommonPosts: 1,393
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle

    Here is why the paying for beta is a better system if people would smarten up. You get to pick what beta projects you want to be part of. I cant count how many times I wanted to get into a beta project and was never sent an invite. Now when that really awesome game you have been waiting 2-4 years for. You get to step up and say, I want to help develop that game. Drop some money, get in beta and start giving real feedback to the devs. Landmark has been a dream come true for gamers. So many things have been changed about EQN because of feedback we have given in game. People who cant get they paid to get into a Alpha or Beta program and want a finished product could end up hurting this new process. In the end game companies may need to shut it down due to internet mob mentality. People crying may take away a tool that can really make the gaming industry better. Buying a voice in a game you care about. How can it get better then that? Shape the game you want to play. This mob internet mentality needs to stop. Gamers need to be better then this as we should be a community supporting the thing we love, games.So dont buy into every paid alpha and bate that comes around expecting something its not. Alpha cant play like a finished game. Instead buy only into the games you care about. If you cant wait and buy into a beta program just to be the first on your block to try it. Dont nerd rage on the internet as you can end up hurting the gaming industry by removing this tool that could change the games we want to play for the better. EDIT: This is before you get into all the money being dropped into crowd funded games that no one bats an eyelash at. This is just a valid way to support a game you want developed. 

     

    We already have a thread along these lines, why make another thread? This thread should be locked.
  • JaedorJaedor Member UncommonPosts: 1,173


    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    Originally posted by Loke666 The problem is that you need dedicated alpha and beta testers or the whole process is meaningless. And in my opinion the paid alphas and betas get less of those then you get when you screen people who asked to be testers. In a perfect world you actually pay people for testing the game and offer a finnished product to your customers. If you can't do that you need to find the best possibly volunteers. I tested a bunch of games during the years (sadly without pay) and when I do I actively look for bugs and exploits and report them in. Do you think that is common now with testers who pay to test or do they just try to play and have fun?
    Ya the people that stick around after the start of the paid Alpha/Beta. That core group that paid because they wanted to be there, they give feedback. Im in Landmark and the quality of people giving feedback and playing is a really tight community. They really care about the game and have given feed back to the devs and they have listened. Yes, this process may reap twits but they dont stick around. This process also makes sure everyone who cares about the game and really test it, gets in. 


    This is a good example of the process and dialogue that takes place to shape a game from pre-alpha to open beta; players are shaping the game and devs are making the new shape that comes from player input.


    Wow is often used as an example of how a sub alone can handle the costs, but folks don't seem to understand that Blizzard may only be able to sustain WoW against vastly increased costs because of the number of subs. We don't know what Blizz' break point is regarding negative cash flow, but I imagine their margins are pretty slim.


    On topic, I generally agree that additional forms of monetization are good and pretty much needed in the industry. However, those with the money to pay for early access are directly shaping game content, so the concerns from F2P folks about money wielding influence have merit in this dialogue.

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 8,573
    Originally posted by mrneurosis
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer

    That's not what Alpha and Beta are for. No, the whole concept is flawed because it's not about players (smartening up). It's about Developers and publishers wanting to cash in on it.

    image

     

    I will tell you how awesome this whole idea is. i got invited to beta of WS. It put me off so badly seeing what i was getting into that i cancelled my pre order. Alpha/ betas are nothing but free trial (or used to be seeing how you get charged for it now). The whole purpose of 'test our game' gets defeated when you start charging full price upfront months before release. And on top of that devs manage to convince these players that they are actually making a difference in making the game better. image

    This type of things happens with free beta and paid. How does that change anything? Fact remain. You care about a game you can ensure you get into that beta to make it better and give feedback. In Landmark I have seen this happen again and again. 

  • AcidonAcidon Member UncommonPosts: 795
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle

    Here is why the paying for beta is a better system if people would smarten up. You get to pick what beta projects you want to be part of. I cant count how many times I wanted to get into a beta project and was never sent an invite. Now when that really awesome game you have been waiting 2-4 years for. You get to step up and say, I want to help develop that game. Drop some money, get in beta and start giving real feedback to the devs. Landmark has been a dream come true for gamers. So many things have been changed about EQN because of feedback we have given in game. 

    People who cant get they paid to get into a Alpha or Beta program and want a finished product could end up hurting this new process. In the end game companies may need to shut it down due to internet mob mentality. People crying may take away a tool that can really make the gaming industry better. Buying a voice in a game you care about. How can it get better then that? Shape the game you want to play. This mob internet mentality needs to stop. Gamers need to be better then this as we should be a community supporting the thing we love, games.

    So dont buy into every paid alpha and bate that comes around expecting something its not. Alpha cant play like a finished game. Instead buy only into the games you care about. If you cant wait and buy into a beta program just to be the first on your block to try it. Dont nerd rage on the internet as you can end up hurting the gaming industry by removing this tool that could change the games we want to play for the better. 

    EDIT: This is before you get into all the money being dropped into crowd funded games that no one bats an eyelash at. This is just a valid way to support a game you want developed. 

     

    I was irked about the paid alpha trend, but you made a very compelling argument.  I bought into H1Z1 (and don't regret it one bit), and I will continue to do things like (as long as the price points are closer to H1Z1 versus, say, Dying Light).

    All in all, I agree with you.  Parts of it enlightened me and made me change my stance on things.

     

    Thanks for the post.  It was very well written and displays the other side of this argument that runs rampant in these forums.  So thanks.

    image

    ~A

  • mrneurosismrneurosis Member UncommonPosts: 305
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    Originally posted by mrneurosis
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer

    That's not what Alpha and Beta are for. No, the whole concept is flawed because it's not about players (smartening up). It's about Developers and publishers wanting to cash in on it.

    image

     

    I will tell you how awesome this whole idea is. i got invited to beta of WS. It put me off so badly seeing what i was getting into that i cancelled my pre order. Alpha/ betas are nothing but free trial (or used to be seeing how you get charged for it now). The whole purpose of 'test our game' gets defeated when you start charging full price upfront months before release. And on top of that devs manage to convince these players that they are actually making a difference in making the game better. image

    This type of things happens with free beta and paid. How does that change anything? Fact remain. You care about a game you can ensure you get into that beta to make it better and give feedback. In Landmark I have seen this happen again and again. 

    Thing is stuff like this does more harm than good as many have already mentioned it. yes some people will stick no doubt but that doesn't mean these practise doesn't hurt the game in long run. And no 'player makes the game better in beta' is just an illusion. All you do is help them squash some bugs but that is also done by a minority. I can bet that majority just want to play and get value for their money and have no interest in making the game 'better'. All fundamental and important decisions are already taken by the suits and dev. 

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 8,573
    Originally posted by Jaedor

     


    Originally posted by Nanfoodle

    Originally posted by Loke666 The problem is that you need dedicated alpha and beta testers or the whole process is meaningless. And in my opinion the paid alphas and betas get less of those then you get when you screen people who asked to be testers. In a perfect world you actually pay people for testing the game and offer a finnished product to your customers. If you can't do that you need to find the best possibly volunteers. I tested a bunch of games during the years (sadly without pay) and when I do I actively look for bugs and exploits and report them in. Do you think that is common now with testers who pay to test or do they just try to play and have fun?
    Ya the people that stick around after the start of the paid Alpha/Beta. That core group that paid because they wanted to be there, they give feedback. Im in Landmark and the quality of people giving feedback and playing is a really tight community. They really care about the game and have given feed back to the devs and they have listened. Yes, this process may reap twits but they dont stick around. This process also makes sure everyone who cares about the game and really test it, gets in. 

     


    This is a good example of the process and dialogue that takes place to shape a game from pre-alpha to open beta; players are shaping the game and devs are making the new shape that comes from player input.


    Wow is often used as an example of how a sub alone can handle the costs, but folks don't seem to understand that Blizzard may only be able to sustain WoW against vastly increased costs because of the number of subs. We don't know what Blizz' break point is regarding negative cash flow, but I imagine their margins are pretty slim.


    On topic, I generally agree that additional forms of monetization are good and pretty much needed in the industry. However, those with the money to pay for early access are directly shaping game content, so the concerns from F2P folks about money wielding influence have merit in this dialogue.

    I think the process could be improved by adding back the NDA to paid Alpha/Beta. I am sure this paid early access can be made better. Anyone else have any ideas? Would you play a paid beta if it had a NDA?

  • BattlerockBattlerock Member CommonPosts: 1,393
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle

    Originally posted by Jaedor
      Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    Originally posted by Loke666 The problem is that you need dedicated alpha and beta testers or the whole process is meaningless. And in my opinion the paid alphas and betas get less of those then you get when you screen people who asked to be testers. In a perfect world you actually pay people for testing the game and offer a finnished product to your customers. If you can't do that you need to find the best possibly volunteers. I tested a bunch of games during the years (sadly without pay) and when I do I actively look for bugs and exploits and report them in. Do you think that is common now with testers who pay to test or do they just try to play and have fun?
    Ya the people that stick around after the start of the paid Alpha/Beta. That core group that paid because they wanted to be there, they give feedback. Im in Landmark and the quality of people giving feedback and playing is a really tight community. They really care about the game and have given feed back to the devs and they have listened. Yes, this process may reap twits but they dont stick around. This process also makes sure everyone who cares about the game and really test it, gets in. 

     


    This is a good example of the process and dialogue that takes place to shape a game from pre-alpha to open beta; players are shaping the game and devs are making the new shape that comes from player input.


    Wow is often used as an example of how a sub alone can handle the costs, but folks don't seem to understand that Blizzard may only be able to sustain WoW against vastly increased costs because of the number of subs. We don't know what Blizz' break point is regarding negative cash flow, but I imagine their margins are pretty slim.


    On topic, I generally agree that additional forms of monetization are good and pretty much needed in the industry. However, those with the money to pay for early access are directly shaping game content, so the concerns from F2P folks about money wielding influence have merit in this dialogue.

    I think the process could be improved by adding back the NDA to paid Alpha/Beta. I am sure this paid early access can be made better. Anyone else have any ideas? Would you play a paid beta if it had a NDA?

     

    We found common ground, I agree 100 percent, bring back the NDA
  • JaedorJaedor Member UncommonPosts: 1,173


    Originally posted by Battlerock
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle Originally posted by Jaedor   Originally posted by Nanfoodle Originally posted by Loke666 The problem is that you need dedicated alpha and beta testers or the whole process is meaningless. And in my opinion the paid alphas and betas get less of those then you get when you screen people who asked to be testers. In a perfect world you actually pay people for testing the game and offer a finnished product to your customers. If you can't do that you need to find the best possibly volunteers. I tested a bunch of games during the years (sadly without pay) and when I do I actively look for bugs and exploits and report them in. Do you think that is common now with testers who pay to test or do they just try to play and have fun?
    Ya the people that stick around after the start of the paid Alpha/Beta. That core group that paid because they wanted to be there, they give feedback. Im in Landmark and the quality of people giving feedback and playing is a really tight community. They really care about the game and have given feed back to the devs and they have listened. Yes, this process may reap twits but they dont stick around. This process also makes sure everyone who cares about the game and really test it, gets in. 
      This is a good example of the process and dialogue that takes place to shape a game from pre-alpha to open beta; players are shaping the game and devs are making the new shape that comes from player input. Wow is often used as an example of how a sub alone can handle the costs, but folks don't seem to understand that Blizzard may only be able to sustain WoW against vastly increased costs because of the number of subs. We don't know what Blizz' break point is regarding negative cash flow, but I imagine their margins are pretty slim. On topic, I generally agree that additional forms of monetization are good and pretty much needed in the industry. However, those with the money to pay for early access are directly shaping game content, so the concerns from F2P folks about money wielding influence have merit in this dialogue.
    I think the process could be improved by adding back the NDA to paid Alpha/Beta. I am sure this paid early access can be made better. Anyone else have any ideas? Would you play a paid beta if it had a NDA?

     

    We found common ground, I agree 100 percent, bring back the NDA



    Totally agree.

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 8,573
    Originally posted by mrneurosis
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    Originally posted by mrneurosis
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer

    That's not what Alpha and Beta are for. No, the whole concept is flawed because it's not about players (smartening up). It's about Developers and publishers wanting to cash in on it.

    image

     

    I will tell you how awesome this whole idea is. i got invited to beta of WS. It put me off so badly seeing what i was getting into that i cancelled my pre order. Alpha/ betas are nothing but free trial (or used to be seeing how you get charged for it now). The whole purpose of 'test our game' gets defeated when you start charging full price upfront months before release. And on top of that devs manage to convince these players that they are actually making a difference in making the game better. image

    This type of things happens with free beta and paid. How does that change anything? Fact remain. You care about a game you can ensure you get into that beta to make it better and give feedback. In Landmark I have seen this happen again and again. 

    Thing is stuff like this does more harm than good as many have already mentioned it. yes some people will stick no doubt but that doesn't mean these practise doesn't hurt the game in long run. And no 'player makes the game better in beta' is just an illusion. All you do is help them squash some bugs but that is also done by a minority. I can bet that majority just want to play and get value for their money and have no interest in making the game 'better'. All fundamental and important decisions are already taken by the suits and dev. 

    I think this is chucking out the baby with the bath water. I agree you get a lot of twits in paid early access but there has to be ways to make this system work better so the games you really want a voice in, you can get one if you want to pay. How would you make it better? Or do you think there is no way to change it for the better?

  • lugallugal Member UncommonPosts: 671
    All paid alpha/beta tests are marketing BS. Companies know that people will pay to play games in a broken state. By calling the games alpha/beta, they get the excuse to hide behind releasing unfinished games. Also the added benefit of fanboys will scream, "it is alpha/beta, they are fixing it! You just have to give them time!"
    This whole new process is a sad joke. Companies release console games in unfinished states now, so this plague is crossing over from PC's.

    Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    The reviewer has a mishapen head
    Which means his opinion is skewed
    ...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley

  • HowbadisbadHowbadisbad Member UncommonPosts: 453


    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    I cant count how many times I wanted to get into a beta project and was never sent an invite. Now when that really awesome game you have been waiting 2-4 years for. You get to step up and say, I want to help develop that game. Drop some money, get in beta and start giving real feedback to the devs. 


    Let's be honest with ourselves here, we all know the majority of people are paying (primarily) to play the game early. That's why it's called early access.

    Waiting for:
    The Repopulation
    Albion Online

  • nbtscannbtscan Member UncommonPosts: 862

    The problem with paid Alpha/Beta is that many people treat them like an early access demo of the game instead of trying to break the game and reporting bugs so the devs can improve the finished product.

    I think Archeage is the latest example of why forking over $150 for an Alpha version of a game is a bad idea.  Nowadays, I prefer to wait and see reviews from game reviewers and players alike after a game is actually released before throwing my money at something.

  • Quazal.AQuazal.A Member UncommonPosts: 859

    My only problem is whilst i dont mind (and have) paid for alpha/beta access the problems i have is whilst playing the game during these phases are two fold.

     

    1 - Devs refuse to listen to suggestion or even in worst cases refuse to act upon non working mechanics etc.

    2 - Players who truely think that the game is live and moan if something isnt working and whilst challenged to then report it to the devs they usually say somet like "its not my job"

     

    The old alpha game was something that was just a shell and in recent times the closest i came to the original alpha was albion online and that the game was litterally just the core mechanics and everything else was being worked up and my few quid just helped the smaller devs keep money rolling until the game went/goes live.

    The beta was something that is pretty much in release state and players bug hunted but no major changes would happen after this and upto release.

    Sadly today these old beliefs are rare in alpha/beta players.... and same goes for some devs. some just see it as a cash grab and fail to act upon players suggestion ideas.

    This post is all my opinion, but I welcome debate on anything i have put, however, personal slander / name calling belongs in game where of course you're welcome to call me names im often found lounging about in EvE online.
    Use this code for 21days trial in eve online https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=d385aff2-794a-44a4-96f1-3967ccf6d720&action=buddy

  • HarikenHariken Member EpicPosts: 2,510
    Originally posted by lugal
    All paid alpha/beta tests are marketing BS. Companies know that people will pay to play games in a broken state. By calling the games alpha/beta, they get the excuse to hide behind releasing unfinished games. Also the added benefit of fanboys will scream, "it is alpha/beta, they are fixing it! You just have to give them time!"
    This whole new process is a sad joke. Companies release console games in unfinished states now, so this plague is crossing over from PC's.

    Agreed i have better things to do with my money.

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 8,573
    Originally posted by MisterZebub
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer

    That's not what Alpha and Beta are for. No, the whole concept is flawed because it's not about players (smartening up). It's about Developers and publishers wanting to cash in on it.

    Bulldozer treads came from the invention of tanks, something to kill people. Does not change the fact bulldozer are a really great time saver and are helpful. Even if they started out as cash grabs, does not mean we cant use them to better the games we love.

    And yet every year many people are still killed by bulldozers. Stated intent or purpose has very little to do with anything if that item is then misused or abused. Yes bulldozers are incredibly useful machines, but improperly used can still kill you or an innocent bystander deader than fuck.

    Same with a paid beta/alpha. If your now paying lab rats feel they are being milked, swindled, abused, or ignored then they are going to raise a stink about it. That's not healthy to a games public image. There is also the danger of upsetting the apple cart by a company making drastic changes post beta, which will be seen as bait and switch. Or player fatigue before the game is even fully launched making the game a ghost town post launch as the people who wanted to pay have done so, shot their wad, and then buggered off to some other new "next big thing". And finally the outrage by paying beta testers when they find to their horror that a company is just not very good at making MMOs, for example the hot stinky mess that is Mortal Online.

    In summation, do I think that paid beta/alphas have the potential to be a good thing? Its possible. However I feel if they are abused they stand a much larger chance of killing a game franchise faster than a run away bulldozer. In this current MMO climate which do you think has more of a chance of happening?

    I think it depends on player outlook. Right now I think players are lashing out because they are learning for the first time what testing means. Not a perfect game. I see many saying they wont buy early access again and I hope they dont. This also depends on the game companies. How many will keep popping up for quick cash grabs with no plans to make a real game? How fast will we learn to read the signs on what companies are doing that? I think once things settle down, this has more chances of helping then hurting. 

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    Originally posted by MisterZebub
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer

    That's not what Alpha and Beta are for. No, the whole concept is flawed because it's not about players (smartening up). It's about Developers and publishers wanting to cash in on it.

    Bulldozer treads came from the invention of tanks, something to kill people. Does not change the fact bulldozer are a really great time saver and are helpful. Even if they started out as cash grabs, does not mean we cant use them to better the games we love.

    And yet every year many people are still killed by bulldozers. Stated intent or purpose has very little to do with anything if that item is then misused or abused. Yes bulldozers are incredibly useful machines, but improperly used can still kill you or an innocent bystander deader than fuck.

    Same with a paid beta/alpha. If your now paying lab rats feel they are being milked, swindled, abused, or ignored then they are going to raise a stink about it. That's not healthy to a games public image. There is also the danger of upsetting the apple cart by a company making drastic changes post beta, which will be seen as bait and switch. Or player fatigue before the game is even fully launched making the game a ghost town post launch as the people who wanted to pay have done so, shot their wad, and then buggered off to some other new "next big thing". And finally the outrage by paying beta testers when they find to their horror that a company is just not very good at making MMOs, for example the hot stinky mess that is Mortal Online.

    In summation, do I think that paid beta/alphas have the potential to be a good thing? Its possible. However I feel if they are abused they stand a much larger chance of killing a game franchise faster than a run away bulldozer. In this current MMO climate which do you think has more of a chance of happening?

    I think it depends on player outlook. Right now I think players are lashing out because they are learning for the first time what testing means. Not a perfect game. I see many saying they wont buy early access again and I hope they dont. This also depends on the game companies. How many will keep popping up for quick cash grabs with no plans to make a real game? How fast will we learn to read the signs on what companies are doing that? I think once things settle down, this has more chances of helping then hurting. 

    I think players are lashing out, but I don't see anyone actually learning. I see lots of people throwing ideas around like developers are just making excuses, or developers are using it so they don't have to deliver a quality product, or that sympathizers simply come running, waving their arms saying "It's Alpha, it's alpha!!". That's not learning, it's actually quite the opposite. The problem is that there is no industry push for education. I think that the assumption is made that people know what alpha and beta mean, but few actually educate. 

    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
    ----------------

  • immodiumimmodium Member RarePosts: 2,604

    This is what happens when you allow regular Joes help develop AAA games.

    image
This discussion has been closed.