Notes

Soft Launch Scam: The Soapbox

In the early days of video games there was no anything like a soft launch. The watr Sega did not send test copies of Super Mario World out to "backers" and Nintendo did not distribute half-finished Sonic games with promises for more content. The majority of games were played after they had been printed, packaged,, and shipped. Beta testing was a higher-profile distinction for those committed to a game or its community, even on PC.



Here in these modern times of Internets and always-ons, however, things are different. Developers need to develop enough game content to create an impressive trailer before the publishing team can start collecting money by placing a sticker with the "BETA" label on the webpage and giving players early access.



Soft launches have become more frequent in the last few years, especially for online game creators. Publishers are seeing the line blurring between "in development" and "done", and players are suffering.



This word is still in use.



A quick clarification that if players pay for access to a game in any way, form, or form, that's not an open beta. It's a launch. It doesn't matter how the publisher calls it. Beta testing is a service dedicated fans provide to see a title succeed. It should never cost money to help a publisher or developer work out the wrinkles.



Live cash shop? Launch. Founders pack up-front payments? Launch. Anything that has a dollar sign on it? Launch. Publishers that accept money from players in exchange for access to the game or other items are deemed to be in beta. The term "beta" signifies that a game needs more testing. If a game isn’t complete, if its game items aren't proven or if it provides an experience that is in any way unfinished, it's irresponsible to take a dime from player money until those issues have been resolved.



This is different from the issue of crowdfunding. In crowdfunding, participants invest in an idea and hope that it is realized. Soft launches, however, require money for a product that is already in development but isn't ready for release. The promise made through crowdfunding is "We'll try our best to make this a reality." Soft launches say that "We are likely to repair all the broken parts eventually." But for now keep shopping in our cash shop.



There's certainly something to be said for indie developers who rely on early payments to keep games in the pipeline. Without paid betas, for instance, Minecraft wouldn't be a thing. But Minecraft and games like it are closer to crowdfunding than early access, because they're typically upfront about the fact that the game isn't yet available to the general public. Players participating in those paid betas are aware of what they're buyingThey know that the game they're purchasing isn't always a product that will function correctly.



You would have to ask Neverwinter players who were subject to rollbacks due to exploits if they had received the same disclaimer.



QA is a privilege



If there's a player willing to go through a broken, incomplete game in the interest of improving it then the publisher should be paying person to do the work -- not the reverse. Quality Assurance, or QA, is usually an in-house (or outsourced) position in a games studio for which employees are paid to track the game's issues but somehow, the publishers have convinced a large portion of gamers that this is a sort of privilege that can be obtained by investing money prior to everyone else.



Before this was the standard, players had to pay to play. It was a straightforward transaction. Now, players pay money to be able to play an online game that could eventually become something worth playing. And would you be willing to try it out for us as we go along? There's no final product, just a series of never-ending updates. The game can (and can and does) change and it doesn't matter if the game transforms into something that players want. The money is already in the bank.



Soft launches aren't legally liable. Publishers open the cash store and line up the rewards of the founders pack but at no time during the purchase process is it ever established what "finished" actually means. EULAs contain a lot of language about betas being betas and the possibility of resets or wipes, or any other issues occurring. Publishers are not responsible for servers being down for a short period of time or when the game wipes hard drives to which they have been installed. But those looking for the part of the EULA which outlines the time they will be able to see their investment considered as a refund be disappointed.



Soft launches are a major issue and their increasing popularity is worrying. They've created a situation where publishers can outsource QA testing to the people who are most concerned about their titles and force those people to pay for the privilege. If those passionate players lose money to server downtime, cash shop item changes, or a massive series of wipes and rollbacks and wipes, well this is only betas, isn't it?



Players can choose to stop paying for games that aren’t completed or stop complaining about games that aren't yet finished, but still have fully functional cash stores and "early-adopter" payment levels.



It's either one or other.



Everyone has an opinion, and The Soapbox allows us to indulge in our own. Join us Massively writers each Tuesday as we take turns atop our own soapbox to deliver unfettered editorials that are a bit out of our usual sphere of influence and not necessarily shared with Massively as an entire. Are you certain that we're right? We'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.


My Website: https://thewatr.net/