Are We Losing Sight Of What Beta Means?

Beta is about "testing" the game, not "playing" the game. Providing feedback to the company and allowing for the "testers" to communicate with the devs about possible exploits, bugs etc. Shame on the company who creates such a ploy to gain.

Buying your chance to get into the game to play...cross that, "test" it? What a shame. If the company wants to avoid the heat of the press, then they should allow beta access by rotating the people who have been "testing" the game for months (we all know most are not actually testing the game, they are playing the game). Do you and does GGG know the difference?

They have not provided the details yet as of this moment.

Please provide some quality feedback.

*EDIT: I just want to clarify, if this post does not apply to you then please, don't get huff'n'puff about it. Yes yes, there will be some clown who talks about "playing" the game vs testing blah blah. I am only interested in the discussion about "paying to win beta access".

*EDIT: I changed the title from "GGG Is Losing Sight And So Are You" to the direction of the discussion.

It's been done before all the time. And believe it or not even if they accept donations without giving beta access in return, people would still donate.

People that get in the beta just to play the game will still encounter crashes and bugs, the more tech savvy will try to replicate them and post on the forums. From the others GGG still gets crash logs to investigate. Are you implying having less testers is beneficial? Because unless the game is in a very unfinished state, it's simply not.

Do some research and check how many times it's been done by hundreds of other companies. It's an extension of the F2P model and it's a smart move. You could "pre-order" Tribes Ascend several months ago and get in the beta for 30$. It's a common practice and the "heat of the press" will be completely non-existent.

best way to test a game is to play it like a player would play it ....

I somewhat agree.
I was in a few closed beta, and I highly disliked the comments about DEMANDING more time to 'test'. Where the devs was clear about the purpose of why they limit the testing times.

But it's not possible to test without actually playing right? And why it's bad to have fun meantime?

I consider myself being somewhere between the two. I won't force myself to test something awfully bad thing. Also I don't see the point to write a wo't with my thoughts. It would almost exactly match what many others have wrote already.

Also, I did read trough the whole Beta Manifesto, and I like the general direction the game heading to. I will start shouting when I see something I dislike =P

Btw, the sheer number of 'Shut up and take my money' post are a feedback by itself, don't you think?

A lot of companies do this. I can name a few off of the top of my head: Tribes: Ascend, Project Zomboid, and Minecraft. It's fairly common practice for both online and single player games. It's a good way to get funding coming in so you can continue to add to the game and also nets you more testers, which means more bug reports/crash logs, which in turn allows them to find and wrinkle out more bugs.

Edit: Yeah, i named games instead of companies. Sorry 'bout that. Also, add Towns to that list. And 3079.

I'd rather have the community involved in a more extensive Beta like PoE, Minecraft and Tribes than get a rushed product. Final Fantasy XIV, anyone?

A lot of us aren't just end-users. We like to be involved in the development process and if I'm able to provide feedback or make suggestions that improve a game that will be played by thousands/millions? Pretty cool.

People can:

1. wait until the game is released, play for free.
2. Sign up for a beta spot, play for free.
3. donate, and play the beta.


Nobody has to donate anything. Nothing is a "ploy" and GGG isn't losing sight of anything.

I do disagree.

You do not buy a beta key.
You are buying something, like more stash and in addition get a beta key.

Sounds fine and i realy do like the idea.

(At least that's my guess how it works)

Some interesting points are being made, yet, just because a company does it should it be common practice? Yes, funding in itself is 'the' major factor in the continuation of game development, yet what direction does this type of philosophy of the company and player base do to the integrity of future company development of both the game and how betas are conducted? I am trying to find out why donations would 'not' be considered a donation. I have to ask, if someone 'donates' should they get something in return or are they actually 'paying to play'? What is the difference?