Frontier, if you need more beta testers then make beta free

[B0SSD0G]

^^ Why should you get something for free, that ks backers, without whome the game wouldn't even exist, paid for?

Testing beta isn't work. It's FUN. You might as well argue the while game should be free.

The point I was trying to make (not very well) is that I'd also be happy to pay for the BETA access and invest time in it if something was offered of compensate for the lack of progress made in the live game (AKA credits). KS Backers get all the access ... that's fine with me and they deserve it ... and they have all been playing this for so long that a few weeks of lost grind time has no effect on them. I'm not in that position so I'll be sticking to 2.2 until 2.3 is released.

 

[NW3]

What we need to consider are the effects of this strategy in the long run.

Its ok to charge for beta test, its really the prerogative of the developer to decide on this.

What is not acceptable is that, due to the fact that there are few people paying for beta test access, not all bugs and issues are addressed before target launch date.

This creates a negative domino effect. At the end of the day, the playerbase suffers which makes this strategy counter intuitive.

FD gains money from a small number beta testers in the short term.
On the long term perspective, FD will get a lot of negative feedback from players if a lot of bugs are not fixed
This will result to bad publicity and may fail to attract huge potential new players

Ultimately, its really the best interest of any developer not to charge for beta testing as more people will be engaged and more bugs will be fixed before launch date.

I agree with the OP.

it would be better to have an early paid Beta access which will be preceded by a limited Open Beta access before target launch date.

I understand your point. The thing is, more reported bugs != more fixed bugs.

The developers only have a limited amount of time each day to fix bugs; eventually, the game must ship. The reality is (in any programing environment) that the "worst" bugs get fixed and that other fixes must be delayed for another day. That's the unfortunate reality of software development. More beta testers often just means more duplicate bug reports to sift through, which takes time that might be spent fixing stuff.

It's a balancing act; you try to fix as many "bad bugs" as possible in the time available. The lists of features and fixes in each E patch is pretty impressive, actually. I carefully read the items and it takes me quite a while to make it through the lists.

 

[Mengy]

^^ Why should you get something for free, that ks backers, without whome the game wouldn't even exist, paid for?

Testing beta isn't work. It's FUN. You might as well argue the while game should be free.

Well, in most modern games simply owning the game itself grants you access to beta versions for testing purposes when the dev studio makes them available for testing. So it's not "free", you need to own the game first.

The point of beta testing is to try out new features and bug hunt, not play the game and enjoy yourself. Find things that need fixing so that the devs can fix them before going live. Make the game better for everyone. I regularly beta test for many games that I own, such as all Blizzard titles, both Euro Truck 2 and American Truck, Terraria, Starbound, Minecraft, and others that I'm not thinking of right now. I've done it voluntarily for many, many years for games that I really like and want to support. It's not about playing content early, it's about testing content, finding repeatable bugs, and then writing bug reports. It's work, not play, and I'm sorry but paying someone else, after having bought the game already, to do bug hunts for their development? Yeah, no thanks, that just ain't kosher to me, it's just not how the industry works.

Frontier is getting away with it though so kudos to them, milk that playerbase! I just can't pay to beta test in good conscience, my own time (and my money) is too valuable for that, no matter how much I like a game.

 

[thirstyfish]

^^ Why should you get something for free, that ks backers, without whome the game wouldn't even exist, paid for?

Testing beta isn't work. It's FUN. You might as well argue the while game should be free.

Because we are providing FD with a service. We are testing their game. Testing their software and delivering feedback and data for them. Every other beta I have ever seen has been free of charge, even if it is by invite only.

I have bought the game already, I wouldn't mind beta testing it, but there is no need to double dip. Why should I pay for a version of a game that I already own that is inherently smaller and my save file is going to go away? That doesn't make sense.

 

[who?]

Yep, and this is pretty much the end of the discussion, because as long as Frontier keeps selling beta access and people keep buying it, Frontier doesn't have any reason to stop selling beta access. Their marketing is working, people are paying to do their beta testing, why would Frontier want to change what's working?

Plus suddenly making it free to beta test would devalue everyone who has already paid during the kickstarter and such for such access, so I really don't see Frontier changing it at all.

Can't say I'd blame them either, no matter how much I might dislike it, lol!

Arguing back the other way (because I'm contrary) - I see no harm in opening up the final beta of each point version. Early backers / lifetime pass owners retain their 'exclusivity/early access'. FD limit the number of bug reporters during the early, buggy phases. They also get a much bigger number of beta testers towards the end, where the game is more stable and needs stress-testing. And FD get their money. Win win win win.

 

[playfuldreamer]

I've never seen a community self-flagellate as much as the Elite one does. Seriously, there's like a committee that hunts for critical threads and then jumps down the OP's throat en masse.

/sigh

Really considering abandoning this place. Let them have their echo chamber.

 

[Besensec]

(1) The point is not that we want beta access for us and for free.
(2) The point is neither that we are butt hurt and envious because others have beta access
(3) The point neither is that we are impatient to try the new things early and cant deal with it.
(4) Although a valid point, is not central to the argument that beta access shouldn't be a paid privilege.

Any argument presented against any of these points doesn't address -and potentially evade- the central underlying one against paid beta. The underlying point to any varying position against it is the following;

(P) If the game was nearly bug free, paid beta wouldn't be a problem.

But none of the arguments against OP and the people agreeing with him is addressing this (as far as I could follow the thread). The game is seriously lagging in bug killing, and the neglecting of this fact seems to be a fanboy view rather than proper criticism.

I haven't seen any new criticisms in all the threads. It's always the same arguments, repeated every time, rather like a version of Groundhog Day that comes up every couple of months instead of every day.

Yes, is true. But that is part of human nature as annoying as it is. Is not pleasant, I know. But the forums aren't simply a place to discuss topics, and even less to discuss topics to reach an agreement and declare each topic solved so it will never be discussed again. They are also a channel that developers use not only to communicate with their customers, but also to get a hold on the reality of their products and policies. And even though many post are idiotic, immature, ignorant and whatever we may call them (and this is why people like you are necessary and valuable, to moderate when that happens), they are still factual, and as such, they serve as valuable evidence of a symptomatic reality of whatever may be relevant for FD. In other words, every single post made in a forum can be taken as evidence of a reality that otherwise the developer wouldn't have access to. If some thread keeps emerging in the forum, then that is an indication that there is an issue that is not being resolved.

If a topic is irritating, people should just stay away from them, unless they have a real argument to contribute as a result of an honest attempt to understand the other's points of views. But then again, human nature...

You know what? If the "work" involved relaxing at home in my dressing gown, cracking open a few beers, playing a god damn computer game for fun and then noting any bugs I'd spotted and raising them (not that I'm ever first, never spotted an original bug yet), then yes I'd pay a whole 5 pounds. Crazy eh?

The irony is that you already paid for that when you bought the game, since this is a game particularly rich in bugs. So why pay even more to help FD fix those bugs? The only argument that I see acceptable, is the one about lifetime passes. But FD's initiative to sell paid access back then seems to be a short sighted attempt to make their old package more valuable when they had little to offer. It turned out they shot themselves in the foot again. And on another hand, the argument about Capitalism that keeps popping up also serves to point out that things tend to loose value over time, and therefore, eventually will the privilege of beta access.

 

[dumbo]

(P) If the game was nearly bug free, paid beta wouldn't be a problem.

But none of the arguments against OP and the people agreeing with him is addressing this (as far as I could follow the thread). The game is seriously lagging in bug killing, and the neglecting of this fact seems to be a fanboy view rather than proper criticism.

You are confusing "finding bugs" with "fixing bugs". AFAIK there isn't a lack of people "finding bugs", but there is obviously a lack of developer time to triage those bugs and schedule fixes.

 

[Noctover]

It did make me smile when i got it yesterday.

I'll pay money for your game, not your work in progress .

 

[pewter]

I was considering pressing report spam on that email honestly. One more time this happens and to spam report they go.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Capitalism is invoked like business is supposed to be exempt from criticism, like people shouldn't share advice about what's worth the price. Declaring something to be an angle, a rip-off, is part of the free market ecosystem, for the better. Capitalism isn't "Businesses are good", or "Business practices are good". Many of both get weeded out because they don't work, including for reasons as wistful as people having bad feelings about them, hence avoid spending money on them. In other words capitalism is a debate. (While other systems like socialism/communism are dictates.)

Sure. Thats why I literally said we have a choice, and both are fine. But 'demanding justifications' is bizarre. Marketing aims at a single goal. There is never a moral reason for marketing one way or the other, no Divine Scripture.

You can buy or dont buy it. You can advice others to do the same. You can click the 'dont send me furthermails' options. But some here really, really still dont get it:

FD are not Noble Knights, working away towards that Noble Goal. Together. One for all, all for one! They are a business, so they tell people they sell stuff. Being surprised by it, and literally askibg for a 'justification' for a company havibg a marketing division is just daft.

 

[Pyrobee]

Love it how some people in this community don't get that the primary purpose of a buisness is to make money, given the amount of threads we've seen recently. If people are dumb enough to demand to pay for beta access, it would be pretty poor way to run buisness if they didn't oblige.

They could always change to SC's buisness model and charge $1000 to buy a ship.

 

[EdzUp]

OP my take on FDEV charging for beta is not the number of beta testers BUT the quality of the beta testers, if they opened it all up they would get spammed by people wanting x feature removed or changed to their liking by charging for it they avoid this headache.

 

[Ian Skippy]

(1) The point is not that we want beta access for us and for free.
(2) The point is neither that we are butt hurt and envious because others have beta access
(3) The point neither is that we are impatient to try the new things early and cant deal with it.
(4) Although a valid point, is not central to the argument that beta access shouldn't be a paid privilege.

Any argument presented against any of this points doesn't address -and potentially evade- the central underlying one against paid beta. The underlying point to any varying position against it is the following;

(P) If the game was nearly bug free, paid beta wouldn't be a problem.

But none of the arguments against OP and the people agreeing with him is addressing this (as far as I could follow the thread). The game is seriously lagging in bug killing, and the neglecting of this fact seems to be a fanboy view rather than proper criticism.


Yes, is true. But that is part of human nature as annoying as it is. Is not pleasant, I know. But the forums aren't simply a place to discuss topis, and even less to discuss topics to reach an agreement and declare each topic solved so it will never be discussed again. They are also a channel that developers use not only to communicate with their customers, but also to get a hold on the reality of their products and policies. And even though many post are idiotic, immature, ignorant and whatever we may call them (and this is why people like you are necessary and valuable, to moderate when that happens), they are still factual, and as such, they serve as valuable evidence of a symptomatic reality of whatever may be relevant for FD. In other words, every single post made in a forum can be taken as evidence of a reality that otherwise the developer wouldn't have access to. If some thread keeps emerging in the forum, then that is a indication that there is an issue that is not being resolved.

If a topic is irritating, people should just stay away from them, unless they have a real argument to contribute as a result of an honest attempt to understand the other's points of views. But then again, human nature...


The irony is that you already paid for that when you bought the game, since this is a game particularly rich in bugs. So why pay even more to help FD fix those bugs? The only argument that I see acceptable, is the one about lifetime passes. But FD's initiative to sell paid access back then seems to be a short sighted attempt to make their old package more valuable when they had little to offer. It turned out they shot themselves in the foot again. And on another hand, the argument about Capitalism that keeps popping up also serves to point out that things tend to loose value over time, and therefore, eventually will the privilege of beta access.

If the game was bug free you didnt need a beta. You are arguing medicine shoukd only be free if noone is sick. Besides, it makes no sense either way: you dont get to decide what product should cost which amount. You are the consumer. You get to decide if you buy it.

- - - Updated - - -

Love it how some people in this community don't get that the primary purpose of a buisness is to make money, given the amount of threads we've seen recently. If people are dumb enough to demand to pay for beta access, it would be pretty poor way to run buisness if they didn't oblige.

They could always change to SC's buisness model and charge $1000 to buy a ship.

Its because for many ED is more than a game, and FD more than a business. Dreams and reality mix poorly, and reality generally gets the bill.

 

[Whitehair]

I was considering pressing report spam on that email honestly. One more time this happens and to spam report they go.

Whatever happened to 'reasonable' responses like 'unsubscribe'?

 

[Kyokushin]

Beta is almost free now. Its better than free, because plebs will not get it.

 

[Whitehair]

OP my take on FDEV charging for beta is not the number of beta testers BUT the quality of the beta testers, if they opened it all up they would get spammed by people wanting x feature removed or changed to their liking by charging for it they avoid this headache.

Because we are providing FD with a service. We are testing their game. Testing their software and delivering feedback and data for them. Every other beta I have ever seen has been free of charge, even if it is by invite only.

FD have a self selection invite policy. Pay for the Beta and you get in. That does tend to ensure that the people engaged in the Beta test phase WANT to be there and be involved. Sounds like a good quality filter to me.

 

[space pilot]

OP my take on FDEV charging for beta is not the number of beta testers BUT the quality of the beta testers, if they opened it all up they would get spammed by people wanting x feature removed or changed to their liking by charging for it they avoid this headache.

You get self-selection bias in the extreme if your testers are all paying for the privilege. Surely those making money from the system want to believe, and probably let themselves believe, that the bias isn't a problem. But it seems to me if you're worried about marketing to people who are selective about buying games/expansions, having the least selective people possible as testers is unideal. They're more likely to stroke your ego though, so it's a veritable bundle of positive feedback loops only countered by eventual product sales.

 

[Whitehair]

You get self-selection bias in the extreme if your testers are all paying for the privilege. Surely those making money from the system want to believe, and probably let themselves believe, that the bias isn't a problem. But it seems to me if you're worried about marketing to people who are selective about buying games/expansions, having the least selective people possible as testers is unideal. They're more likely to stroke your ego though, so it's a veritable bundle of positive feedback loops only countered by eventual product sales.

LOL. You should read the beta forum

 

[Yaffle]

Because we are providing FD with a service. We are testing their game. Testing their software and delivering feedback and data for them. Every other beta I have ever seen has been free of charge, even if it is by invite only.

I have bought the game already, I wouldn't mind beta testing it, but there is no need to double dip. Why should I pay for a version of a game that I already own that is inherently smaller and my save file is going to go away? That doesn't make sense.

I guess you could just assume you were not invited and the world makes sense again.

It strikes me that many pushing for a free beta want to use the beta, which implies there is value to having the beta. If there is value, why not charge for it?