...but I honestly can't help but think that releasing a game in a "pre-alpha" state for $20 plus is taking the piss. For example Folk Tale will release on Steam later today/tomorrow for $20. Yet only contains a tutorial at present. A tutorial that explains elements that may or may not even make it into the game when it's finished. The developers say they need early adopters for feedback. Am I the only one who thinks it's inappropriate to charge so much so early on in development? Why should we be paying so much to provide feedback? Surely they need the feedback more than we need to give it.

Of course Folk Tale isn't the only example of this. There are many others, including War for the Overworld which released in a state where you can't even save your progress for $22.

I just can't see how that can be justified. Steam isn't a Kick Starter service and really shouldn't be used as one (although I expect that's exactly what Valve want in the future).

Sure it makes sense to give beta access to a game that's about to release, such as Prime World Defenders, where the game is already in a fully playable state and just needs balancing/bugs ironing out.

Maybe I'm just too old to get this selling in an alpha/beta state so early in the game's development for so much but I really don't think price tags that early should be any higher than $10.

/rant

Well, I'd say it depends on the game. It doesn't really make sense to sell pre-access to a linear game, imo. However, in a sandbox game like Minecraft or Don't Starve, where after you reach a certain point it's basically just adding more stuff in, I think it can be justified. In that case it's a way of basically rapidly building up the game and seeing how users react to stuff you add. Plus, you can iterate more rapidly since things don't need to be perfectly polished before they're rolled out.

But yeah, I don't know anything about Folk Tale, but that just sounds silly.

Personally I think releasing an unfinished game to the public is a poor move from an ethical business standpoint, but people seem to love being in on something early. I guess I just miss the days of actual qualified QA teams with testers and playtesters who knew what they were doing, followed by post-release patch support for unforeseen issues. The whole "obvious beta release" thing that uses the audience as the playtesters really rubs me the wrong way.

I don't like alphas/betas because I burn out from playing the game too much before its in a finished state.

Folk Tale is meant to be (at the moment) a sandbox game. But apparently the sandbox part won't be ready for several months. So yeah, I honestly don't understand why they are releasing now with so little content at that price.

Your example of Minecraft is a good one. I recall that had a very low price at the start and as more features made it in, the price increased. That makes sense to me. But this current trend of setting a higher base price based on potential future content, comes off as greedy. Makes me wonder how many potential buyers are being put off. Both good points. Again with Minecraft, has that actually released? I honestly can't tell the difference and haven't touched it for ages. Still don't know if they have proper mod support yet.

But yes, I can understand the need for indies having to use customers as the playtesters -- they don't really have access to QA teams -- but I really don't think they should be charging so much for the privilege of being their testers, especially if you're not getting credited for it.

Actually a tutorial is a joke if its pre alpha. There really should be more than that, even if a basic framework etc stuff will be added to.
Having said that, does the $20 entitle you to the full copy of the game when its finished? (if ever) Or just alpha access?.

Plenty of kickstarters have started to have beta and alpha access tiered separately and you pay extra for it $15-20... but many give you the full game once game is done.

Customers now tend to be impatient and will pay through the nose, throw money at a screen and take anything as long as they get the shiny.

Only played one of those "support the dev and buy alpha", it was for Underrail and I would never do it again with an unknown dev. But it was cheap on Desura so it was no biggie, but I think it does a dis-service to other devs, it put me off buying an unfinished product from anyone again.

Sure, but Minecraft and Don't Starve had much lower prices for their early versions, which is as it should be.

Yeah, this is also a big thing.

Also, both games were well worth the asking price, at any point in their development ;-)

Well, it's a matter of opinion, sure, but I have certainly gotten much more than my money's worth out of both games, especially Minecraft. I don't know how many hours I've spent on that game over the years, but it's certainly more than a thousand. That's excellent value for money at almost any price.

And I agree with the sandbox thing. Those are more or less the only games where it makes sense to buy an alpha version.

I like Alphas and Betas. I like to see how a game develops, somehow. And I like the thought that I am contributing a little bit towards a developer. But there are two caveats:

1) They should always be discounted, as you as a buyer are taking a punt
2) I never play Alphas for strong narrative games, as they are usually only played once.

I don't get why developers would let out their creation in such an incomplete state, it's like an artist half finishing a painting and then selling it. For publicity alone, you want to only put your game out when it's at its best. I guess it's a money issue though

It's just the law of the market. Everything is allowed and in the end the best compromise between sellers and buyers expectations will dominate.

If they find enough buyers willing to spend 20$ and giving early feedback, then they can do it like this and then they also should do it like this. Why giving your work away for below value? And maybe the final product is so awesome that it will sell for a much higher price (pre-ordering).

But I wouldn't pay 20$ for sure. I would actually expect to be paid because my time for giving feedback is valuable. Of course for a good cause I might give my money away. But not in this case.

Steam can become a bit like Kickstarter. Don't see a reason why it shouldn't. However I guess the success will be limited.

So my guess is that these developers greatly overestimate the worth of their alpha/beta product and will not obtain much feedback or revenue and might go down soon. But they are free to try it and maybe they will be successful.

Other projects will learn from this and in case they fail will offer alpha/beta products at a lower price in the future.


money, publicity, cheap feedback

Publicity also becaue people all over the internet will talk about it. :)

If it works it'll be a bargain for them. I guess it won't.

a artist never sells his art to begin with, money seems to cloud the purpose of making a quality product