General / Off-Topic Pay to test, not get paid to test

[-o-]

Is the 'pay to test' model found in any other industries?

A new car is being developed which you are keenly interested in. Can't normally pay to go drive it through it's testing phases.

A book is being written closing a trilogy you are keenly interested in. Can't normally pay to proof read it.

A movie is being made which you are keen on. Don't normally pay to sit in the audience just to watch it's pre-release trailer. Pre-screenings are free.

So why are games so different? Has this now become part of the marketing model - basically charge a fee for modular 'early access' and label it as a testing phase to make the customer feel like they are part of the game creation?

You don't normally see this in other types of software do you? I mean does Adobe allow you to pay an additional amount to test their next release? Does Microsoft charge you an additional amount to test their next OS?

If this becomes the norm with games, won't producers simply create specific crippled builds of their games, label them as test builds, and then charge the consumer an additional amount for this early access? Anyone working in marketing aware of such strategies in the gaming industry?

 

[ianw]

Just supply and demand isn't it?

Call it pay to test/have early access whatever you like.

If they have it - and they are not giving it away for free - and you want it - you pay for it.

I guess people aren't falling over themselves to get the next Acrobat version or Windows 8.2 - they aren't even multi-player!

 

[Gimi]

Is the 'pay to test' model found in any other industries?

It's unusual, but not unheard of in other industries. People pay extra to be the first to "test" / fly on new aircraft or in some cases new trains. Another example is people paying to participating in tests of new amusement park attractions, ski slopes/lifts and so on. But you still expect to get the whole experience, and calling this paying to test something is probably stretching it a bit.

I think the main difference we are seeing is that some of us are paying extra for something which is less than the final product. Can't find a good example of that outside the gaming industry.

 

[xyphic]

It's about the value of being -- or at least feeling -- involved in the development of the game. By being involved early, your feedback can go into making the game more like what you want (so if you don't like the flight model you get the chance to feed back into its development before it's completely locked down for beta).

This is similar to the DDF. Many of us were happy to pay to be involved at that level because we got the opportunity to help mould the game at a stage where it's still pliable.

It benefits everyone: Frontier get good early feedback on their design and implementation as well as bug reports, and the users get early access with the opportunity to have their say on the development of the game.

 

[Oss133]

It is not as unusual as you may think.

Brand new product hits the market. It costs £2,000.00. 1 year later it's £1,000.00. 2 years later it's £500.00.

If you bought it on release at £2,000.00, you paid extra to test it.

 

[metatheurgist]

Software is a bit different from other products. It's easier to retool them than a "hard" product. When you alpha test a program you have an opportunity to shape it's development. If it's something you're really invested in it might be worth it to get your input in. This is completely different to a book (solely the author's vision) or a movie (a product of multiple disciplines and expensive to change).

It's better than buying a supercar. You drop a hefty deposit for a test drive and be put on a waiting list. Of course you do get some say in customisation for a supercar, so I guess that's a little bit like being in an alpha.

 

[Associat0r]

You are allowed to play and enjoy the alpha whenever you like and aren't obligated to report anything, so why would you get paid?

 

[Iain M Norman]

Does Microsoft charge you an additional amount to test their next OS?

Yes. I paid for Windows 8.0 *grins*

 

[Darren Grey]

I think the main difference we are seeing is that some of us are paying extra for something which is less than the final product.

But it's not less than the final product, because you get that product too. So you have additional experience of something akin to that product before that product is released. People put value on that. It used to be really cool to be a beta tester on a game, there was even a black market on beta keys. Game makers saw that people were willing to pay for it, so they made it more official. Supply meeting demand.

It probably shows something about gamer psychology, the desire to be first, to be above another class of people. I could never understand those who forked out on Oculus dev kits just to play with them, for instance. Or anyone who bought a console on launch when there are no good games yet. More money than sense in some cases

 

[jabokai]

I could never understand those who forked out on Oculus dev kits just to play with them, for instance.

Pretty much comes down to "disposable income" for me. It's a technology I've always had an eye out for so when it came to the Oculus KS it was a no-brainer for me - support the project and get a toy to play with. I spend (aka waste) a lot of my salary on things I don't need - just bought a Leatherman Charge TTi when I had a perfectly good Leatherman Wave that I never use. Just something to do innit - shrouds don't have pockets as my Ma always says!

 

[Oss133]

Pretty much comes down to "disposable income" for me. It's a technology I've always had an eye out for so when it came to the Oculus KS it was a no-brainer for me - support the project and get a toy to play with. I spend (aka waste) a lot of my salary on things I don't need - just bought a Leatherman Charge TTi when I had a perfectly good Leatherman Wave that I never use. Just something to do innit - shrouds don't have pockets as my Ma always says!

Indeed. What do we earn our money for, if not, after spending it on what we need, to spend it on the things we want.

 

[Cosmos]

I think the OP makes an interesting observation and it does seem a bit odd that people are paying for an unfinished product, or to be part of the testing process.

It depends on how you look at it but when it came to ED I backed the project because I have been wanting to see this game made for a seriously long time. Elite was a childhood experience that I really enjoyed and I am pleased to see it finally being remade with modern tech.

Its worth acknowledging that on this project the backers have had a real impact on how the game is developed.

I expect it comes down to individual choice and what people find value in.

 

[popuptoaster]

Alpha testing is not true testing, you get to play parts of the game early and IF you break it then you report the bugs.

True testers who get paid for it have to play the same parts over and ver again with the intention of finding bugs and exploits or recreating one someone else reported.

My mate used to test games back in the 90's I rember him telling me about a platform game they were making (can't remember which one, sorry) but he said when he checked his logs for the week he had played the same game level something like 530 times trying to get the scoring system to do something it had done once before.

 

[deMangler]

I am paying into Alpha for the opportunity to contribute even more. That is what I was offered, and I thought - ok I will pay for that.
In my mind this is very different from what I do when I do the early adopter thing of buying a product because I feel strongly that it needs to succeed and might not do so unless I buy in. That comes from me wanting to influence an outcome. I have supported other kick-starters for this reason and also bought an Android phone for this reason (it was not obvious at the time it would succeed) and other stuff. I might do a similar thing with Google glass or other things if the opportunity arose but I feel it doesn't exactly need my financial support, but I help out there by giving Google data about my internet habits that they can sell.

Pay-to-test is in my mind not what the Alpha is about but I can see how it is being sold - eg "Be part of the Elite: Dangerous development team!" as it says on the Beta store page to me means contribute some money and also be able to help make the game good. To other people this means pay for more game and get to be cool. It seems people are buying different things, but are they being sold something different?

 

[Cosmos]

Its worth noting with ED that all I have actually done is play it. The release was so rock solid I've never felt that I was doing testing or bug reporting.

If I think about it more, other larger companies do this but without the requirement for payments. Blizzard has closed and open betas and is in a position to not have to ask for people to help fund them.

Online multiplayer games are a complicated beast these days. When it comes to PCs there are so many variables in terms of various hardware its probably a nescessity to have players play test the game so a company can cover all the bases for release.