It is with concern that I have noticed a misconception among some of us. Beta testing is spoken of as an entitlement by players, implying a right to Beta test simply for being interested in the game. In addition, some players discuss games they are Beta testing in public forums, possibly breaking non-disclosure agreements, and attempting to dissuade other players from considering playing the game. They may point out specific flaws found during Beta tesing or generalize, but the majority of these players seem to treat Beta testing as a demo of the game.

Commercial beta tests ARE a demo of the game, like it or not.

I also consider it a good thing others try and dissuade other from wasting their money based on their own bad experience. This is consumer supporting consumer, and thats a good thing.

I take it as a sign of confidence in their product if a Dev offers a commericial 'beta' or a trial for their game before/ at launch.

If a Dev is hiding behind a NDA at the point where they ask for money then I have to ask myself... do I trust this Dev? Do I know their product? Do i have faith in their ability to deliver?

In the case of, say, FC with TSW that answer would obviously be- yes, I know them and their product, and no I do NOT trust them.

With ANet it is- yes, I know and trust them.

If ANet ever birn me the same way FC has (twice!!) then obviously I will re-evaluate this.

Maybe if people actually TESTED instead of just looking for a free trial...

NO.

WHY? Nobody has any right to anything that they do not own or have bought.

Players have as much right to access Beta testing prior to release as they have the right to subscription free games.

Of course, it would be nice to have the option, but claiming it as a right is way beyond fantasy.

I'm betting that beta testing sooner or later will be a part of the pre purchase industry standard, where you prepurchase the game and are allowed to do the job of testing and improving the game for free............. where you get the right to pay for the unfinished game, and then invest time in it to finish it.

Hmmmm.........Back in the old days definitley not. However the world has changed now. If publishers are asking people to put down large sums of money before a release date is even set for pre-orders and collectors editions, then those players are contributing to the development of the game imo and should be alowed in the test.  Also, as many of us have been badly stung by AAA  releases over the last 6-7 years then I feel it's only natural for people to want to get a early peak at the game to see if it's something they want to buy. However the sense of entitlement that a lot of posters and gamers I have seen vocalising their opinions on these boards and others is enough to make you loose faith in humanity. I think once companies started advertising beta access as a selling point that they changed the nature of the whole process.

Originally posted by Damon

 *snip*

It is with concern that I have noticed a misconception among some of us.  Beta testing is spoken of as an entitlement by players, implying a right to Beta test simply for being interested in the game.

It's also with concern that I've noticed a trend of developers using public betas mainly as a part of a game's marketing program; advertising guaranteed beta access as a prepurchase perk, making them short to just get a glimpse of low level gameplay and not really use them for testing purposes anyway. Though there might be players stumbling over unknown bugs now and then in a beta weekend, chances are that extensive closed, in-house beta testing already got 99% of bugs and issues listed.

We see this kind of practice more and more with AAA releases. In that sense I really have to aplaud the ArchAge developers for their long, open betas without NDA and without other strings attached. It's a much more honest and less cocky way to handle it in my opinion.

I think 'right' is a poor choice of words.  I think that any company asking money from players should offer a sample of their product via an extended Open Beta, however, and leave Closed Beta and NDA's to actual testers, the way it was previously.

However, I would also point out that the rules of Open Beta should be downright draconian in that if a player wants to participate in it, they do so under no illusions that they can be/will be banned at any time for activities like 'trolling'.  I've just finished the CBT series on TERA, for instance, and have encountered no small number of people who won't purchase it because they thought that the community was going to be as atrocious as what they saw in the beta which was positively overflowing with so-called trolls.  The only response to their presence was 'thats the way it is', and that is no answer at all.

So in summary: No, not a 'right', but a fair expectation given the amount of money being asked of them.  Whether the industry responds to this fair expectation is another thing entirely.

Originally posted by DarkPony

Originally posted by Damon

 *snip*

It is with concern that I have noticed a misconception among some of us.  Beta testing is spoken of as an entitlement by players, implying a right to Beta test simply for being interested in the game.

It's also with concern that I've noticed a trend of developers using public betas mainly as a part of a game's marketing program; advertising guaranteed beta access as a prepurchase perk, making them short to just get a glimpse of low level gameplay and not really use them for testing purposes anyway. Though there might be players stumbling over unknown bugs now and then in a beta weekend, chances are that extensive closed, in-house beta testing already got 99% of bugs and issues listed.

We see this kind of practice more and more with AAA releases. In that sense I really have to aplaud the ArchAge developers for their long, open betas without NDA and without other strings attached. It's a much more honest and less cocky way to handle it in my opinion.

You don't have a right to beta test anything. However companies will often use beta access as a means to spread the word. When large amounts of people get access to a beta, why would X get in and Y not? The company has the option of keeping betas closed. When they go for a public beta, then I don't see why a consumer couldn't see that as a right. You're as entitled to try it as the next guy, so I guess that's a bit of a right even if it means nothing at all.

Beta testing is a hot button for me, and I think that they should be very limited.

Companies need to pay people minimum wage to internally test their games.  Open/closed betas just don't seem to work as well as they intend, and of course, leaks happen.  I will list several, personal, reasons as to why I don't like open betas, or big betas.

It IS a marketing ploy that almost ALWAYS fails horribly.  Let me explain why I say it fails and doesn't work.

        A:) People see the game, play the game, THEN decide they don't want to purchase it.  This, in my opinion, leads to less sales because these same people would most likely puchase it anyways just to try it out.  This leads me to my second point.

        B:)  Beta testers use up all the content.  In beta, well, in these "new AAA title betas" users are able to experience most if not all of the game content, in beta.  They experience this content while it is buggy, thus causing them anger and pleasure at the same time depending on how the bug affects them.  Let me elaborate further...

                               B1:)  When people experience all the content in beta, they witch and moan when the game actually comes out.  They reach the top tier level within a week - a month, depending on the player because they have already experienced everything in the game, they know the secrets/best spots to level, and they do it super fast to be "#1 (insert class".  After this happens, they complain.  They complain about everything.  You can refute this, but look on any forum a month or two after release, People Are Complaining, People are leaving, not in small numbers, but in large numbers.

                               B2:) A company gets excited and releases 100 servers on launch day.  While this is good, and it appeases the gamers initially, a good percent of them generally crumble ruining the experience for everyone else on the server.  Too often companies cut and cut to make a few unhappy gamers happy, but these unhappy gamers who were unhappy initially then got appeased are most likely to become unhappy later on, continiously ruining the gaming experience for everyone else who is involved.

        C:) People don't actually report bugs.  OK, some people do, but the majority?  They are in it for the "trial".  They are in it to find out all the secrets, to find out how to be number 1 on launch day, how to be so good that they can talk crap on the actual new players.  I understand you need to "stress test" servers, but honestly...with so many MMOs out, do you REALLY need to stress test?  Can they not learn from previouse experience and know what their servers can generally handle?  I am sure each game is different and I am no pro game tech person by any means, but aren't MMO servers...MMO servers?

I have been in my fair share alpha beta tests, closed beta tests, and open beta tests.  I have been MMO gaming since 1999 and after so many years of MMO gaming, testing and what not, this is my personal conclusion that I have come to.

Beta tests should be limited, if not internal, and people honestly should not complain when they don't get their "free trials in order to see how to level the fastest then complain when they get to top level and are bored."  Refute this all you want, but in my opinion this is the number one thing that I hate about betas.  People use up all the content, then witch and moan about nothing to do.  This ruins the experience for everyone else that enjoy the game because they bail, make servers empty, ruin the economy and generally provide a bad attitude that influences the community that they are in.

Sorry about the long post, but yep!

There is no such right.

So an MMO lemon law?

Sounds great, but the government doesn't take the industry seriously enough to police it, much less look out for its customers rights.

Has anyone saved themselves $60 or the sub fee by beta testing the game? You got to see how the company treats it's customers, takes feedback and see how the game is. I've done it before, FFXIV beta was a good case. Me and my friends were hyped for the game, played it, found we had nothing to do but grind after our 8 daily quests were done and we saved ourselves $60 of awfulness. Oh yeah, and the FFXIV team at the time plugged their ears and said no feedback, JP ONRY. Glad they got what was coming to them.

Is it a right? Well, would you rather have people in the beta who just want to play it while it's free, while not letting people who are actually going to pay from playing? Most MMO games are moving towards F2P anyways, I don't see why it would really be an issue in the near future.

I never seen players feeling entitled to being in a beta, only going nuts at the chance to get access to one by contests. If you're referencing GW2, people paid $60 to get access way before they even have a release date, with the guarantee that they get access to beta weekends. Some people are feeling Anet is just calling betas something else, like this weekend's stress test, which was yesterday and some today, thereby keeping out people who paid $60. A lazy day zeta test would be another term for it. Anything that doesn't include beta or weekend you can exclude the people who paid.

Really, I haven't seen players feeling entitled to any beta access. Instead they've been jumpling on each other just trying to apply, that's it. I have however, seen people defending companies for no reason, which is a more disturbing trend. Still, the right? No. But the companies usually have open betas now, so what difference does having a right make?

no

What they need to do is stop calling it beta and call it public review or something.

Been screwed over way too many times in the past by undelivered promises. At this point, nevermind whether I pre-purchased or not, I consider the onus on the developer/publisher to be willing to let me play their game if they expect money from me. In fact, this extends to any single-player games too - demo or gtfo.

I suppose that this is horribly arrogant on my part, and I know I didn't have this attitude 4-5 years ago, but it's pretty much a necessity now. There's no overseeing commission in existance, online review sites are thoroughly untrustworthy and usually incompetant, and online word-of-mouth is suspect, with the IQ of a concussion moose. Game companies repeatedly and consistantly fail to deliver on promises, and suffer very few meaingful consequences from it. So the only protective barrier left involves experiencing the game personally - before purchase.

So yeah, I'd better get beta/pretrial/whatever access if I go to the extent of actually putting money down for it. If they want to call it a "beta", go right ahead. I'll even post any bugs/glitches that I manage to find, even if I don't particularly believe it'll accomplish anything. But fair warning - deep down, I'll probably be treating it as a finished product that will help me decide whether it's worth anything.

Originally posted by Slampig

Maybe if people actually TESTED instead of just looking for a free trial...

This is about just prior to launch, at that point testing has been done, the question is essentially should they offer a free preview before launch?

I don't think it's something they should have to do, it is certainly nice when they do though.

Originally posted by Slampig

Maybe if people actually TESTED instead of just looking for a free trial...

This  /\

Beta testing is not a right.  Beta testing is a job.  I think that giving people that pre-order access to beta is wrong as well.

I've always considered Beta tests to be a privilege not a right.  I also figured the companies gave us Dev clients that sent them gameplay data as we played.  Also everyone should know that open betas are meant as a stress test for the servers to make sure they can handle the load.