Soft launches were not common in the golden period of video games. Sega did not send test copies of Super Mario World out to "backers" and Nintendo did not send out half-finished Sonic games, with promises of more content. Most games were only played after they had been printed, packaged, and shipped. Even on PC, beta testing was more of an honor exclusive to players that showed commitment to the game and its community.
However things have changed with the age of internets and constantly-ons. Developers just need to make enough game content to create a convincing trailer before the publishing team can begin collecting money by putting 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 game developers who create online games. Publishers are seeing the line blurring between "in development" and "done" and players are suffering.
You keep using that word
A quick clarification: If players are paying for access to a game in any way, shape or form, it's not an open beta. It's a launch. It isn't important what the publisher calls it. Beta testing is a process that dedicated fans provide to see the title's success. It should not cost money to help a publisher or developer get rid of the issues.
Live cash shop? Launch. Founders pack up-front payments? Uooka Launch. Anything with a dollar sign on the page for downloading? Launch. If a publisher is accepting money and giving players game access or items for it is not in beta anymore and is now available. The term "beta" means that a game requires more testing. If a game isn't complete, if its game items aren't proven or if it gives an experience that's in any way unfinished, it's indecent to accept a dime of player money until those issues are solved.
This is distinct from crowdfunding. Crowdfunding is where players are in support of an idea and hope that it will come to fruition. Soft launches, however, demand money for a product that has already been developed but isn't ready for release. The crowdfunding promise is that "We'll make this a reality." Soft launches promise that "We will probably fix this broken system in the near future." However in the meantime keep shopping in our cash shop.
There's definitely something to be said about 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. But Minecraft and similar games are more closely related to crowdfunding than early access, because they're generally upfront about the fact that the game is in no way accessible to the general public. Players participating in those paid betas are aware of what they're buying- they know that what they're buying isn't necessarily something that will function correctly.
One might want to ask the Neverwinter players who were subject to rollbacks due to exploits if they had received the same disclaimer.
QQA as an honor
If there's someone willing to endure through a broken, incomplete game in the interest of making it better then 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 track problems with games 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 all other players.
Before this was the norm, players paid money and played. It was a simple process. Now, players pay to receive the promise of an experience that may, eventually, be something worth playing, and oh would you like to test it for us as we go along? There is no final product. It's just a series constantly-changing updates. The game could (and does) change and it doesn't matter if it transforms into something that players want. The money's already in the bank.
There's no accountability in a soft launch. Publishers can open the cash shop and then set up the rewards for the founders pack, but at no point in the buying process is it clear what "finished" actually means. EULAs are full of language about betas being betas and the possibility of resets, wipes, or problems occurring. Publishers aren't responsible for servers being down for a few hours or in the event that the game wipes hard drives to which they were installed. Users who want information on the time when their investment is considered officially returned will be disappointed.
Soft launches are a major issue and their increasing popularity is concerning. They've created a scenario where publishers can outsource QA testing and force those users to pay for it. If these players are losing money to server downtime or cash shop item modifications, or a massive cycle of wipes and rollbacks but, hey this is just betas, right?
Players have two options: stop paying for games that haven't been completed or stop blaming games that aren't finished, but equipped with fully functional cash shops and "early adopter" payment tiers.
It's either one of the two.
Everyone has an opinion, and The Soapbox allows us to indulge ours. Every Tuesday, Massively writers will take turns on the soapbox to deliver editorials that are a little out of our norms but not necessarily shared by Massively as a whole. Are you certain that we're right? We'd be delighted to hear from you in the comments below.
No comments yet