Soft Launch Scam The Soapbox

From Science Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Soft launches were not common in the golden age of video games. Nintendo did not send out tests copies of Super Mario World to special "backers," and Sega did not ship half-finished Sonic games with promises of further content updates. The majority of games were played after they had been printed, packaged,, and shipped. Minecraft servers list Even on PC beta testing, it was more of an earned honor exclusive to players that showed dedication to the game and its community.



Here in these modern times of Internets and constant-ons However, things are different. It would seem as though developers only need to create enough game content to shoot an appealing trailer before the publishing team can begin making money by putting a "BETA" sticker on their website and offering gamers early access.



Soft launches have become more common in recent years, particularly for online game creators. Publishers are seeing the line blurring between "in development" and "done" and players are suffering.



You keep using the word



First, let me clarify: If players are paying money to access the game in any way, form or form, it's not an open beta. It's an official launch. It isn't important what the publisher calls it. Beta testing is a process that dedicated fans provide to see the success of a game. It should never cost money to help a publisher or developer iron out the issues. Minecraft servers list



Live cash shop? Launch. Founders pack up-front payments? Launch. Anything with a dollar sign on the page for downloading? Launch. Publishers that accept money from players in exchange for access to games or other items are considered to be in beta. The term "beta" signifies that a game requires more testing. If a game isn't finished, if its in–game items aren't proven or if it provides an experience that is in some way unfinished, it's not responsible to take a dime from player money until those issues are solved.



This is different from the issue of crowdfunding. In crowdfunding, participants invest in an idea and hope that it is realized. Soft launches, however, demand money for a product that has been created but is still obviously not ready for release. The promise made with crowdfunding is "We'll do our best to make this a reality." The promise made during the soft launch is "We will likely repair all the broken parts eventually, but in the meantime please continue to buy things from our cash shop."



There's certainly something to be said for indie developers who rely on early payments to keep their games in the pipeline. Without paid betas, for example, Minecraft wouldn't be a thing. However, Minecraft and games like it fall closer to crowdfunding than early access, since they're usually upfront about the fact that the game isn't yet ready to be seen by gamers in general. The players who participate in these paid betas are aware of the risks they're taking- they know that the game they're purchasing isn't necessarily a thing that will function correctly.



One should ask Neverwinter players who had to endure rollbacks driven by exploits if they received the same disclaimer.



QQA as a privilege



If there's someone out there willing to suffer through a faulty, unfinished game in the interest of making it better, the publisher should be paying that person to do the work and not the other way around. Quality Assurance, or QA is typically an in-house (or outsourced) job at a game studio, where employees are paid to monitor the game's issues however, publishers have convinced a large part of the gaming community that this is a kind of privilege that can be obtained by investing money prior to all other players.



Before this was the norm players had to pay money and play. It was a straightforward transaction. Players now pay money for the promise of a game that's eventually worth playing. And, why not, would you mind testing it along the way? There's no final product, but a series of ever-changing updates. The game could (and can and does) change and it doesn't matter whether it evolves into something that players want. The money is already in the bank.



There is no accountability in a soft launch. Publishers open the cash store and set up the rewards of the founders pack but at no time in the purchasing process is it ever clear what "finished" actually means. EULAs are full of language about betas being betas, possible resets or wipes, or any other issues occurring. Publishers are not responsible for servers shutting down for a few hours or if the game wipes any hard drives to which they have been installed. Users who want details on when their investment can be considered to be officially returned will be disappointed.



Soft launches pose a challenge, and their rising popularity is concerning. They've created a situation where publishers are able to outsource QA testing and force people into paying for it. If these players are losing money due to server downtime or cash shop item changes or a huge cycle of wipes and rollbacks but, hey this is just betas, right?



Players can choose to stop paying for games that aren't yet finished or stop blaming games that aren't finished, but equipped with fully functional cash stores and "early adopter" payment levels.



It's either one or the other.



Everyone has opinions, and The Soapbox is how we take advantage of our own. Every Tuesday, Massively writers will take turns on the soapbox to share editorials that are outside of our normal purviews but not necessarily shared by Massively as a whole. Think we're spot on -or just out of our minds? minecraft servers We'd like to hear your thoughts in the comments