Notes

Soft Launch Scam: The Soapbox

In the early days of video games there was no such thing as a soft launch. Nintendo didn't send out testing copies of Super Mario World to special "backers," and Sega did not send half-finished Sonic games with promises of future content updates. Most games were only played after they had been printed, packaged, and shipped. Beta testing was a more prestigious distinction for those committed to a game or its community, even on PC.



However things have changed in the modern age of internets and always-ons. It seems like developers just need to create enough game content to make an appealing trailer before the publishing team can start collecting money by placing an "BETA" sticker on the webpage and offering gamers early access.



Soft launches have become more frequent over the past few years, particularly for game developers who create online games. The line between "in testing" and "done" is becoming blurred and publishers are reaping the rewards while players suffer.



You continue to use that word



First, let me clarify: If players are paying for access to a game in any way, form, or form, that's not a beta. It's a launch. It isn't important what the publisher calls it. Beta testing is a process that dedicated fans offer to help the success of a game. It shouldn't cost money to help a publisher or developer work out the issues.



Live cash shop? Launch. Founders pack up-front payments? Launch. Anything that has the word "dollar" on it? Launch. Publishers who accept cash from players in exchange for access to the game or other items are considered to be in beta. The term "beta" means that a game requires more testing. If a game hasn't been finished, if its in–game items aren't proven or if it offers an experience that is in any way unfinished, it's irresponsible to accept a dime of players' money until these issues have been addressed.



This is different from crowdfunding. In crowdfunding, players back an idea and hope that it will be realized. Soft launches, however, require money to fund a product that is not yet ready for release but has been developed. The promise of crowdfunding is that "We'll make this an actual reality." The promise made during the soft launch is "We will probably fix this broken stuff eventually however, in the meantime please continue to buy things from our cash shop."



There's certainly something to be said about indie developers who rely on early payments to keep games in the pipeline. Without paid betas, for example, Minecraft wouldn't be a thing. However, Minecraft and similar games fall closer to crowdfunding than early access, since they're generally open about the fact that the game is in no way available to the general public. The players who participate in these paid betas are aware of the risks they're takingThey know that what they're buying isn't always a product that functions properly.



One should inquire of the Neverwinter players who were subject to rollbacks driven by exploits if they received a similar disclaimer.



The QA process is an honor



If there's a person willing to go through a broken, incomplete game in the interest of making it better and more enjoyable, the publisher should be paying someone for the service and not the other way around. Quality Assurance, also known as QA is usually an inhouse or outsourced job in a gaming company where employees are paid to look after the game's performance. Yet publishers have managed to convince an overwhelming majority of the gaming population that this is a privilege which can be gained by investing earlier than the rest of the market.



Before this was the norm, players needed to pay and play. It was a straightforward transaction. Today, players pay to be able to play a game that will probably eventually become something worth playing, and oh would you mind testing it for us as we go along? There's no finished product, just a string of endless updates. The game could and does change, and it doesn't matter if it becomes something players like. The money is already in the bank.



There is no accountability in an unofficial launch. Publishers open the cash store and set up the rewards of the founders pack but at no time during the purchase process is it ever clear what "finished" actually means. EULAs contain numerous clauses about betas being betas, the possibility of resets or wipes, or issues that may occur. Publishers are not accountable for servers being down for a few hours or when the game wipes hard drives to which they are installed. Users who want information about the time when their investment is declared a refund will be disappointed.



Soft launches pose a threat and their popularity is alarming. They've created a situation where publishers can outsource QA testing and force users to pay for it. If the server is down, cash shop items change, or a massive round of rollbacks/wipes causes financial losses for passionate players It's not a issue.
so many books


At the moment, players have two options: stop paying for games that aren't finished or stop complaining about games that aren't finished, but equipped with fully functional cash stores and "early adopter" payment levels.



It's either one of the two.



Everyone has opinions and The Soapbox is how we indulge ours. Every Tuesday, Massively writers will take turns on the soapbox to write editorials that fall outside of our normal purviews but are not necessarily shared by Massively as an entire. Think we're spot on -- or out of our minds? Let us know in the comments!


Here's my website: https://serverslist.org/