But for it to be 'free advertising' the software they release has to be of a particular standard otherwise they'll get negative publicity when it's a buggy mess. Just look at how RCTW's beta was received. Frontier do have a QA department and will make sure that the most obvious bugs are caught before they release in March. The biggest thing that stood out to me when Frontier released Elite: Dangerous into alpha was how polished it was. The amount of functionality was limited, but as they added it that level of polish didn't drop.See, this is where I have a huge problem with Alpha's and Beta's being re-branded as "Early Access/As long as you pay a little extra". Finding bugs and giving feedback has never been a luxury in the gaming industry, people have been paid to do in the past, until recently when Beta's and Alpha's have been used a tool to get people onboard early, at no cost of the developer, yet still benefiting from even more bugs found because higher user base and also as a free adverting tool when people start talking about the game, videos etc.
But this is a *good thing*. People have been crying out for a revitalisation of the 'coaster park genre and the only way that can happen is if someone throws money at it. This is a £10m development project from a company who aren't backed by a rich publisher. The big publishers don't see value in these games. Atari are rolling the dice on one of their last big IPs and really aren't putting all that much money into it.Lately companies have been charging extra money, for people to help fix and advertise their products. PC have said on Twitter that there will be no No Disclosure agreements too, so basically free reign for people to advertise the game as much as possible.
If Frontier overrun their release date, they're the ones who lose. Get it too badly wrong and there'll be no game at all. These extra perks (the Coaster Head Club, VIP passes, Early Bird) are all ways of derisking the project by encouraging an early revenue stream. Or would you prefer it if companies did all their development completely closed, but where half the games didn't make it to market due to going bankrupt?
I'm fine with that. So, seemingly, are a lot of other people. They aren't being forced to buy the Early Bird edition, they're buying it because they're excited about the game and want to be part of its development arc. Nobody can sulk that they weren't chosen to be part of a closed testing group.So think about it, you're paying for the game @ £19.99, plus £30 (which over double the price for the game), so you can do their job and test it, give feedback and advertise it.
Who gets to say it isn't right? It's not you, unilaterally. Just because development methods and sales tactics are changing doesn't mean that they can't be accepted or acceptable. It used to be the case that games companies would advertise their games using assets and imagery that wasn't part of the game and nobody batted an eyelid. Now we find that unacceptable, and Frontier have been called on it themselves with some of Elite's trailers. Everyone slammed Telltale Games when they introduced episodic gaming and season passes, but over time it's become less contentious as other developers pick up and run with the idea. Frontier have tried to capitalise on that change (again with Elite) but have found the community generally unwilling to accept it.I'm sorry, but they should be slammed for this, any other company would. Stop letting companies do this, because then it becomes the norm and it's not right.
Times are changing, people are changing, games development is changing. There'll be some successes and some failures. Frontier have obviously worked out that this model is successful for them and continue to push it. Whether it'll be something that gets picked up across the board, I don't know. But it remains: if you don't like it, don't buy it. The demand for the model will drive its success.