Give beta access to all backers [less the 5$ ones]

[Filipus]

Well, i can only see advantages on this, for gamers and for the Obsidian team.

 

1- The user imput

 

We all now that one of the major problems with obsidian games are the horrible bugs their games have (its true, sorry mates haha).

Same with some mecanics that are not fully tested because of either lack of time or the tester team wasn't really good (i heard somewhere that it wasn't obsidian who did the testing for KOTOR, not sure if true).

If all the backers have access to the beta i believe the game we bough could be so much better...

 

 

2- Much more early access to the game = more backers

 

 

Many people don't like to give 100 euros for a game and have to wait 2 years to play it.

Ok, we love you guys and we trust you but if we got early access we would be much more happy!

It would be also a appealing thing to new backers who are insecure either to buy the game or not.

If they have to pay 140 just to see if they really want it, i doubt any sane person would do it.

Now 20$... That's much more easy.

 

I'm sure there are many more advantages other people would like to suggest, right guys? haha

 

 

 

now, the cons...

I can only see history spoiler as a con.

But, we don't have to play the beta, its a player choice, so it isn't really a con.

[MReed]

Um, no, thank you very much. There are two points:

 

1) Purely and simply, the idea of beta access is to encourage people to contribute more than they otherwise would to the kickstarter.

2) People who have invested more have a more vested interest in the game's success, and (hopefully) are more likely to treat the beta test as a beta test and not an "ealry demo". That is, they will execute test cases provided by Obsidian, report bugs, and realize that this isn't the final version of the game.

 

Now, I wouldn't object to allowing anyone who donated or not to participate in the beta test on an inventation basis (e.g. someone who is active in the community and has been involved in the developement process), but it is reasonable to only automatically invite those who have put their money where their mouth is.

[C2B]

No

 

At least not till a beta test shortly before release.

 

 

The Cons:

 

Every backer had beta access. The resulting chaos doesn't mean a better game or anything. ESPECIALLY if you don't have the manpower to handle all the bugreports and sort fakes out.

[Wintersong]

Testing depends on the publisher. In this case no publisher so Obsidian can delay the game as much as they need and control better the quality of the released game. I'd say that there is a good chance of this game being more solid than the usual Obisdian release.

 

Beta is a nice thing to increase pledge values. Giving it away easily doesn't seem a good idea to me. It's more of a perk for those who want more than to get the game cheap.

 

There is also the thing that having thousands upon thousands of beta testers is not by itself better. If the feedback/bug-hunting isn't good, it doesn't matter if you have 10 beta testers or 100,000. If they keep it just for the Collectors, at this moment it would be almost 1,500 beta testers (plus Obsidian's).

 

All of this, imho.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Wintersong

[BSoda]

Buggy games are rarely caused by lack of (beta) testing. It's the lack of time/resources to do the necessary fixes that cause buggy games.

[Darkpriest]

No. It is a bad idea.. Even though I will most likely not up the pledge beyond my boxed copy, the lowering of beta access is just not efficient from the later feedback/accessibility point of view.

 

Not always more = better. If there will be around a 1k beta testers, that will be already too many.. dealing with over 30k beta testers.... maybe if this would have an on-line component to make system stress testing. Other than that.. not really needed and in fact might hurt more than do good

[Gorgon]

Personally I don't want beta access. I want to play the game when it's done, not exhaust my interest in it while it's still buggy and unpolished.

[Sensuki]

Quite a steep amount to have access to the beta, but I suppose because it will be a popular title that's one way to limit the field somewhat plus it's a good marketing strategy to gain more from current pledges (though I hope it doesn't start a trend among future Kickstarters >_>), I'm quite happy with the ~$35-50 beta access ones thanks

[Filipus]

It looks like you don't know the people.

50% of the backers won't want to play the beta and in the other 50% around 30% wont give any sort of input.

Just look at who's active on the forums.

Those would be who beta test, almost certain.

I'm not saying to give the beta access now, i'm saying give it to everyone.

Make a special sub-section for the beta things to keep down pollution.

 

You would have to go to somewhere to download the beta, so kids thinking its the full game are very rare to appear.

To say the truth, i don't really believe many kids backed this project..

[Kilroy_Was_Here]

What happens a lot in betas nowadays is that some players will find out that some feature they really wanted was cut/minimized/implemented in a different way and react by bashing the game up and down the internet just because their pet peeve was stepped on. This is inevitable anyway, but there's no reason to encourage it more than necessary.

 

Plus, the people who donated less are generally less interested in the game. (I know that some people would like to donate more and don't have the money but let's set that aside for the moment). People less interested are more likely to give feedback like 'this needs to be just like it is in [generic recent release x]. Since I don't want playable pandas I want to avoid this.

[Sensuki]

Funny, I participated in the Red Orchestra 2 and Star Wars The Old Republic betas (among others) and the betas were both better than the full release.

 

But I do like buying games for $20.

[Monte Carlo]

No, I think the cheapskates should be properly jealous of those of us who are considerably wealthier.

 

Just sayin'

[Hornet85]

What happens a lot in betas nowadays is that some players will find out that some feature they really wanted was cut/minimized/implemented in a different way and react by bashing the game up and down the internet just because their pet peeve was stepped on. This is inevitable anyway, but there's no reason to encourage it more than necessary.

 

Plus, the people who donated less are generally less interested in the game. (I know that some people would like to donate more and don't have the money but let's set that aside for the moment). People less interested are more likely to give feedback like 'this needs to be just like it is in [generic recent release x]. Since I don't want playable pandas I want to avoid this.

 

I don't think its fair of you to claim that anyone who donated less than $140 is less interested in the game.

 

We all have our own financial limits, and paying $140 is amazing if you can afford, but it doesn't mean all other passionate fans can afford that, irrespective of their desire for the game.

[Filipus]

What happens a lot in betas nowadays is that some players will find out that some feature they really wanted was cut/minimized/implemented in a different way and react by bashing the game up and down the internet just because their pet peeve was stepped on. This is inevitable anyway, but there's no reason to encourage it more than necessary.

 

Plus, the people who donated less are generally less interested in the game. (I know that some people would like to donate more and don't have the money but let's set that aside for the moment). People less interested are more likely to give feedback like 'this needs to be just like it is in [generic recent release x]. Since I don't want playable pandas I want to avoid this.

 

I get your point.

My situation is exactly the one you said there.

I don't really have the means to back that much up, that was why i really wanted a chance to have beta access also.

I keep my point tough, most people would't really get into the beta, only those that are really interested in the game.

[Hornet85]

Edit: Bah, nevermind, lol.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Hornet85

[Monte Carlo]

It's less than a ten dollars a month.

[Monte Carlo]

I should have put a smiley in. My trollish blood runs deep and I am profoundly sorry.

[Filipus]

I should have put a smiley in. My trollish blood runs deep and I am profoundly sorry.

 

Haha no one took you serious, don't worry

Well, you still haven't convinced me haha.

But if the majority doesn't agree, what can i do?

 

 

 

 

 

OBSIDIAN, GIVE ME BETA ACCESS PLEASEEEE

[Lady Evenstar]

If the $140 donors don't produce enough testers, Obsidian can always invite more. I think it's premature to worry.

[Ieo]

OBSIDIAN, GIVE ME BETA ACCESS PLEASEEEE

 

Has there ever been a closed-source software with fully public beta testing? I'm not talking about the public betas where a beta version is released to the public for final bug runs--those are only for major incompatibilities and not content feedback. Private betas, which I assume this will be given the tier limitation, has always been a minority affair.

 

Resources--robust enough tracking software along with trained QA people to sift through thousands of reports. NDA issues--in closed beta, all participants are held to a strict NDA, and difficulty in maintaining that would increase exponentially if beta testing were fully open. That's a recipe for disaster on so many fronts, it's not even worth considering.

 

Whether limited by $ tier like this or by lottery in another game I play, most people will be left out. It's a privilege and not a fundamental right whichever way it's cut.

 

(In case I wasn't clear--no. )

[Sales101]

I think all should get beta access. There is no reason not to give everyone beta. We are all backing the project and allowing Obsidian to make a game with little risk. The only real risk they have is if the game sucks and is buggy as hell. If thats the case then they have bigger problems. Some will want to play and others have no desire for it so bring on the beta.

[JFS]

I think the pricing is way too steep. Other projects on Kickstarter usually charge about double the game pre-order price (say, in FTL's case it was 10$ for the game and 25$ for the game + early beta access). Obsidian is using the factor 7, which in my opinion is too high - especially as that tier is linked to loads of rubbish that I personally have no use for (game maps, digital guides, whatever). I'm not wealthy, but I care about the game and I'd love to be a beta tester. Having a reasonably priced no-frills tier that offers just the game and beta access which is chosen by lots of backers would in sum most likely yield more money than having a rather expensive tier with only few backers at that level.

 

This assumes, of course, that Obisidian cares about the money and is willing to lure people with beta access. If this is not the case (i.e. they only want "quality" beta testers), then I don't understand their current move to attach beta privileges to backing tiers at all. They should rather keep beta and Kickstarter distinct and choose their beta tasters the old-fashioned way. Disposable income and beta testing abilities have nothing to do with each other.

Edited September 19, 2012 by JFS

[nikolokolus]

Do they really need 80 thousand beta testers? I get it that some people want early access, but something tells me that trying track that many people would be sort of counter-productive for the actual purpose of a beta test? Maybe I'm wrong.

Edited September 19, 2012 by nikolokolus

[LadyCrimson]

Do they really need 80 thousand beta testers? I get it that some people want early access, but something tells me that trying track that many people would be sort of counter-productive for the actual purpose of a beta test? Maybe I'm wrong.

That's my general opinion too. Certainly not for initial beta's .... perhaps when they're very close to finishing and want a much bigger beta pool, they could mail out invites to all backers at that time. But initially ... yeah, I'm going to agree with any of the others who don't want/don't think beta access for all backers is a good idea.

[Ieo]

They should rather keep beta and Kickstarter distinct and choose their beta tasters the old-fashioned way. Disposable income and beta testing abilities have nothing to do with each other.

 

What's the old-fashioned way? I will counter that raffles, lotteries, competitions, and other internal networking methods have NOTHING to do with beta testing abilities either, and yet those methods are certainly employed. None of that has to do with fairness. And pricing is completely subjective; if they put it at $65, a bunch of people would whine that is too high too. In fact, if we go by your logic, beta testers must have background in SDLC and prove it by resume; I guess I'm more qualified than most since I have QA/UAT experience.

 

If anything the $ tier limitation for beta does three things for Obsidian--it's the easiest method, encourages more monetary investment which will go into world creation, and limits the participants to a "manageable" number. Inviting 40k potential beta testers is ridiculous.

 

In terms if limitation, reasoning is already put forth in the thread. Resources, NDA, etc.

 

At later stages? Yeah, it could work with a public beta release to look for major incompatibilities.