Are Alpha/Beta releases counterproductive?

FinglisHobbit

FinglisHobbit

FinglisHobbit

Associate
Joined
27 Mar 2013
Posts
1,971
Location
Lincolnshire
I see lots of early access stuff appear on Steam, some of which I've sunk some money into. However most of the time with games doing this, I have zero interest in the game by the time its actually released.

I kinda miss the whole brand new experience thing. Knowing that no one has played the game before its release (other than in closed tests of course) makes me more excited to try a game out and share experiences..

Most of the time games get released now and I've seen enough mention of bugs or questionable gameplay to put me off the idea of buying it altogether.

Would you say early access/beta tests affect release day sales?.

For example, I played The Elder Scrolls Online beta and if I hadnt, I would have probably bought the game on release. Instead my free experience spoiled any chance of that happening.
 
Public alphas I think can be counter-productive, yes. Public betas I think work OK for multiplayer, but not for single player.
 
The problem is that beta used to mean a complete game with bugs.

These days beta seems to mean a seriously unfinished game with an equal measure of bugs.

If a developer already has sold their game as an alpha/beta, where is the incentive to finish the game? DayZ standalone is a perfect example.

Valve are damaging their reputation by allowing so much of this rubbish on Steam.
 
If the beta is closed and highly selective, on a short timed cycle, I have no quarrel with the system and actually encourage it. I feel strongly against alpha release games though (early release) which is a terrible idea. Why the hell would you want to play some buggy half finished **** for the same money you'd have paid out for the finished product?
 
I think when a game is plodding along in this early release mode the developers must see the interest beginning to fade then think "oh crap we better get this released ASAP before we lose real sales" then they put out some unfinished attempt at a final game.

Its an annoying trend. I understand kickstarter projects help people get games off the ground, and buying into betas/early access can help the developer fund the project. But I definitely feel its making shoddy games :(
 
It's a case per case situation.

DayZ SA - Totally not worth playing. Development team is a shambles and have a lazy attitude.
Assetto Corsa - Worth every penny, fortnightly updates.

In the case of Early Access games, you're supporting and funding small development teams who do not have a huge budget or resources. Moreover, if it is a game that genuinely interests you so you don't mind being fed in small milestones, for example Star Citizen then I see no reason why you shouldn't buy into it.
 
majnu said:
It's a case per case situation.

DayZ SA - Totally not worth playing. Development team is a shambles and have a lazy attitude.
Assetto Corsa - Worth every penny, fortnightly updates.

In the case of Early Access games, you're supporting and funding small development teams who do not have a huge budget or resources. Moreover, if it is a game that genuinely interests you so you don't mind being fed in small milestones, for example Star Citizen then I see no reason why you shouldn't buy into it.
Click to expand...

So... I read this post...

"Star Citizen ey?... let me look into that..."

10 Minutes and 1 Paypal Transaction later. I'm a damn victim of my own rant! hahaha
 
Short week long multiplayer betas (once would have been called a demo but beta is a better excuse when it's buggy) I like. It should give the dev time to fix things but more importantly it lets me try it before I buy it.

Ttitanfall was a great example of this, played it in the beta knew I would get bored of it very quickly and never did buy the full game.

Early access stuff like you get on steam is bad for the game overall I think for the reasons you said yourself.
 
I generally make sure to do my research before funding Early Access titles, get an idea of their previous work, how big their dev team is, how often do they do updates, how finished is the game already? Anything I'm interested in but not ready to fund yet I put on my Steam wishlist.
 
Mechwarrior online was a victim of this. They spent an inordinate amount of time in beta and the launch was a complete wet squib. Betas should really be for ironing out the bugs you can't test for with a small team and to work out server issues/netcode, balancing. The game should be as clean as possible at this point.

Alpha releases are counterproductive and only useful to the developer short term imo. They generate bad press because the game is unfinished, and the expectation never gets realized because of sidetracks.
 
I might agree with you on the 'big releases' - but on many of the indy titles I think its fantastic. Take Kerbal Space Program for example - its absolutely brilliant already and is only on version 0.23.5! They are using the community to provide feedback and direct the development of the game to an extent - I think this is a great way of developing titles.
 
Depends a lot on the quality of the final product and how much of the final product you get to play with in beta testing.

Some by the time they are released your bored to death the the game/genre but others the familiarity with the basic concepts helps you to enjoy the final product more rather than being in over your head at the start.
 
CaptainRAVE said:
The problem is that beta used to mean a complete game with bugs.

These days beta seems to mean a seriously unfinished game with an equal measure of bugs.

If a developer already has sold their game as an alpha/beta, where is the incentive to finish the game? DayZ standalone is a perfect example.

Valve are damaging their reputation by allowing so much of this rubbish on Steam.
Click to expand...

majnu said:
It's a case per case situation.

DayZ SA - Totally not worth playing. Development team is a shambles and have a lazy attitude.
Assetto Corsa - Worth every penny, fortnightly updates.

In the case of Early Access games, you're supporting and funding small development teams who do not have a huge budget or resources. Moreover, if it is a game that genuinely interests you so you don't mind being fed in small milestones, for example Star Citizen then I see no reason why you shouldn't buy into it.
Click to expand...

These.
 
Some of the problems also arise when people buy in, fail to understand the concept of alpha/beta, bitch and moan about bugs or unfinished items etc in any public place willing to allow them page space, talk about how the devs fleeced them out of their cash and then suddenly no one else wants to try the game due to negative reviews.
I play a lot of alphas and betas and get a lot of closed beta invites and even there people dont seem to understand that alpha and beta basically means work in progress.
It used to be an honor to receive a closed beta invite but now people just see it as their chance to bitch because they dont have a perfectly polished game to play and then bad mouth the game because the devs wont implement their crazy ideas into the finished product.
 
Toadem said:
Some of the problems also arise when people buy in, fail to understand the concept of alpha/beta, bitch and moan about bugs or unfinished items etc in any public place willing to allow them page space, talk about how the devs fleeced them out of their cash and then suddenly no one else wants to try the game due to negative reviews.
I play a lot of alphas and betas and get a lot of closed beta invites and even there people dont seem to understand that alpha and beta basically means work in progress.
It used to be an honor to receive a closed beta invite but now people just see it as their chance to bitch because they dont have a perfectly polished game to play and then bad mouth the game because the devs wont implement their crazy ideas into the finished product.
Click to expand...

I'm with this guy. Problem is everyone thinks there a game reviewer or some gaming expert these days and everyone should listen to them because they have some poxy youtube channel and a video with a 1000 hits.

#1stworldproblems :D
 
Spils said:
I'm with this guy. Problem is everyone thinks there a game reviewer or some gaming expert these days and everyone should listen to them because they have some poxy youtube channel and a video with a 1000 hits.

#1stworldproblems :D
Click to expand...

hashtag in a forum post?

I agree with the rest of your statement though, however when you've parted with hard earned cash on the promise of major advances its hard not to whinge when they don't appear.

Dayz SA is the classic case, there is so much fundamentally broken about it that when they release an update that includes adding a new handle design to a knife and fixing a fireplace sound its worse than no release.
Particularly when zombies are walking through solid walls and you have to select a weapon 17 times before you actually get to use it.
 
Toadem said:
Some of the problems also arise when people buy in, fail to understand the concept of alpha/beta, bitch and moan about bugs or unfinished items etc in any public place willing to allow them page space, talk about how the devs fleeced them out of their cash and then suddenly no one else wants to try the game due to negative reviews.
I play a lot of alphas and betas and get a lot of closed beta invites and even there people dont seem to understand that alpha and beta basically means work in progress.
It used to be an honor to receive a closed beta invite but now people just see it as their chance to bitch because they dont have a perfectly polished game to play and then bad mouth the game because the devs wont implement their crazy ideas into the finished product.
Click to expand...

+1, see this all the time.

As to the OP, taking one of your examples, well your only one, I was in ESO beta, and decided not to buy the game because it was so bad bad.

Then I got a really good deal from ....... so bought it, and TBH, I was pretty shocked at how much they had turned that game around in such a short period, it was fun to play decent combat, the whole game felt great, until the cheats and bots came along and ended the game for me.

So games are maybe not always as they appear in beta, and I have being in a ton of alphas betas.
 
could you imagine if duke nukem forever was in buy in beta testing for allll those yearrrsssss :p and still ended up like that :p

I think the problem is that a lot of these companies making these alpha/beta release games are quite happy to let the cash roll in and let it sit in testing forever. As previously stated, Day-z is a great example of this. how long has it been under development and how long till it's released? no body knows xD :p

it just sits there in testing for everyone to keep playing, but without regular updates/improvements it just feels stale so people lose interest. sure can argue "but it's alpha/beta....it's bound to be buggy" I get that.... but seems to have nothing being done to it, you do wonder why did you bother paying in to help these guys out with testing when the don't fix fundamental flaws.


what really gets me is playing an alpha/beta and then the finished game is worse.... I'm looking at you BF4..... surely after alpha and beta things should be fixed... not more broken!!! and they use these"early access" testing to sell their other games. one of the few reason i bought the previous MoH tier one nonsense was because it had "exclusive beta access" to bf... which then was only like a days difference from everyone else who just signed up for the beta... PFFFFFF!!!!!!!!!!!

I do like EA/Dices CTE (community test environment) though and feel this is a right step. nothing new though as games like WoW have had test clients for years for these exact reasons. test things out... see if it works... iron out the creases before patching/releasing to the live client.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom