Philosophy in a "closed" beta.Thoughts.

I have read this entire thread carefully. I still do not understand what the alleged concerns are. Perhaps its a language barrier issue.

Failing to understand what has been said, I just asked myself: Can I see any way that this process hurts the developer or the players? And I can not.

Yes, some players may get tired of the game before release. If additional content is added at release, or after, they may come back then. If not, well at least they got to play what was there, and the developer got some money. They also got the valuable aggregate feedback data of how many early access players stopped playing, and at what point.

The $10 pre-buy deal seems like a win-win. The "beta access" part is effectively no extra cost for anyone who was going to play in release, and spend at least $10 over the lifetime of their playing experience.

And for those who feel they might never spend $10 at the shop -- well, are those really the players GGG should be targeting for feedback or really even catering to much at all? Kudos to GGG for seeming committed to offering even the freeloaders with a great playing experience, but doing so hardly seems like a requirement for remaining "ethical."

GGG has also been great at communicating up front about the state and limitations of the game. People who join know what they are getting into. If they don't like what they see yet, they know from the Manifesto at least some of what is coming. Therefore I do not believe anyone will get a false impression that will cause them to enjoy the game less than they otherwise would have.

I must be up front and state that I am unabashedly biased in this situation, being someone who didn't even create an account until the Open Beta Weekend event. I was actually already hooked after seeing the passive skill tree in a tester's video.

To directly address the point of banalizing the game due to overexposure, this would be an issue regardless of player base, if it were applicable. A player that is prone to "burn out" will do so, and an increased pool of players will make the absolute number of these cases larger, but the percentage would remain virtually static.

Artificial scarcity does not increase the intrinsic value of a product, except in the minds of those for whom the elite status of closed access is a point of pride. Proposing that increased, though limited, access is a problem that needs a solution is another indicator of this view. Many products have measurably benefitted from wider access at early stages, and indeed this model is becoming more commonplace in modern "indie" game development. A prime example of this is Minecraft, another game in which I paid for early (Alpha) access, which has become a textbook example for highly successful pre-order beta testing.

Access to beta can be thought of as a flood gate, controlling the load upon the infrastructure (game) and the engineers (developers).

During closed beta, only a measured trickle is allowed to pass, providing a consistent test load, without too much risk of oversaturating potential bottlenecks. At this stage, response is agile enough to correct issues in a timely manner, while maintaining flexibility to make dramatic changes as warranted.

Once a certain level of confidence in stability is achieved, periodic tests of increased loads can be performed. These open beta weekend events allow a gauging of capability, and will generally lead to one of two outcomes. Either the system is ready to move forward with a larger pool of testers (open beta), or more work is required to reach that state.

A hybrid of these two outcomes is the pre-order beta, with access still being gated, but not in as restricted a manner as before. This allows for direct financial support to the developers, increased feedback from users with a vested interest in the success of the product, and a real-market assessment of viability, while maintaining a manageable load on resources.

A point of contention seems to revolve around the term used to describe the method of pre-order beta access. "Donation" is used by many users, but official sources correctly refer to them as "contributions" and "support."

The notion of altruistic donation, while quaint, is an inaccurate description of human nature, and contributes to my earlier point regarding the elite mindset. Clinical studies have proven that there is an increased endorphine response relative to the size of "donation" made, regardless of personal sacrifice. Human beings do nothing for selfless reasons, there is always a personal benefit, even if it is choosing the "lesser of two evils."

"

Briala wrote:

And for those who feel they might never spend $10 at the shop -- well, are those really the players GGG should be targeting for feedback or really even catering to much at all? Kudos to GGG for seeming committed to offering even the freeloaders with a great playing experience, but doing so hardly seems like a requirement for remaining "ethical."

The ethics come into the picture when this litmus test is applied only to some people and not to others.

"

Aliquis wrote:

The ethics come into the picture when this litmus test is applied only to some people and not to others.

Are you saying its unethical for GGG to invite some players via random drawing (the timer?)

Still not seeing any ethical concerns here. Everybody is eligible to sign up for the Timer drawing. Everybody is eligible to sign up for the $10 pre-purchase. Everybody has the option to play just the free weekends, or to wait for open beta. Everybody is being treated fairly, and the same.

"

Briala wrote:

"

Aliquis wrote:

The ethics come into the picture when this litmus test is applied only to some people and not to others.

Are you saying its unethical for GGG to invite some players via random drawing (the timer?)

Still not seeing any ethical concerns here. Everybody is eligible to sign up for the Timer drawing. Everybody is eligible to sign up for the $10 pre-purchase. Everybody has the option to play just the free weekends, or to wait for open beta. Everybody is being treated fairly, and the same.

Love to know what it is they are saying - the posts I have seen from them have been exercises in semantics that confuse more than enlighten.

"

Aliquis wrote:

"

Panda413 wrote:

They are still giving out free beta keys every 5 minutes.

They are giving the OPTION to people that wish to contribute. It is not now and never will be a requirement to pay money to play this game.

I don't subscribe to any philosophy in which that can be construed as a negative thing in any way.

I don't know what your definition of "now" is, but I can't play "now" unless I buy something first. And I signed up before you did. Your view of this philosophy seems to be shaded by the fact that you didn't get screwed by it.

Last week, the only people that had access to the game were people that received a beta key either through PoE's random generator or another contest or giveaway of some sort.

Today, you can still obtain a key those very same ways... AND you have the OPTION to donate to get one immediately.

If that statement doesn't end the conversation for anyone.. they aren't living in the same reality as me.

As long as the game is fun, people will continue to play. Look at D2, people have been playing that for 10 years!!!! I dont see the problem here.