Alpha =/= Beta - The Common Misconception

Then again sometimes semantics is important.
Some people (like me) thought that the beta would actually be a beta.
And i do hope we are far from a finished product...
So yeah, maybe it would have been better to call a cat a cat and not trying to make people think the game is near finished, because it's not.

 

Is every single feature dev complete? No? Then it is an alpha.

Are only refinements to the system's current set of features being refined? Yes, then it is an beta.

The only question that everyone on this thread (including myself) should be asking is, do we really need nine pages to discuss semantics? Especially when we have all been given a chance to play a game as fantastic as Starbound early? With the added benefit of being able to help steer the design?

Go write some bugs/suggestions for the love of Christ.

 

Tiy defined starbound's "beta" on his own terms: http://playstarbound.com/how-the-beta-is-going-to-work/

Just look past the "It's all a marketing scheme" or "This is a semantic thread" comments and read that.
If you want to see a roadmap of how things are going, you may want to consult this:

http://playstarbound.com/roadmap/

(please stop fighting)

 

This is totally normal. Everyone does it, the numbers are just numerical representations of the animals.

Have you never wondered why the version numbers sometimes seem so arbitrary?

 

Wikipedia actually says that they are generally feature complete. This is now true, in my experience. The thing is, generally implies that sometimes they aren't.

 

Do you always believe everything you read on the internet? If so, even wikipedia can be incorrect on some subjects.

 

I'm not sure what you even mean by this. I was saying that wikipedia, the source that people cite to argue that betas are feature complete says they are GENERALLY feature complete. GENERALLY means most but not all. With the amount of beta tests I've signed up for and how many beta tests are stress tests or PR demos, I find that to be true. I definitely don't believe everything I read on the internet, but I find the statement that GENERALLY betas are feature complete (in modern times) to be accurate.

I prefer betas to NOT be feature complete because I think early player input builds a stronger game. I draw my opinions on beta tests from having participated in at least 100 betas and about 5 alpha tests as well as an internship with game developers. I don't have to believe thing I read on the internet for these opinions because I can reflect upon my experiences to form my own opinion.

 

What I meant by that is, the word GENERALLY gets used in everything. People take this word for granted and expect that every company should have all features. I have been in a lot of betas and many stress tests. So I do like playing a beta from having almost nil content to being fully released. I was just merely pointing out that a lot of people read things from the internet and believe every word of it. Thats why I don't like citing things from the internet unless it came from the company in a post.

 

While some part of me appreciates your romantic notions of "singularly-defined words" and producer-consumer relationships, there's the other part of me that is equally infuriated by your naiveté and my profound disbelief that you could be legitimately surprised by the content of this beta.

First off, I'd like to point out that most PC games these days (especially indie titles) are released without their full content. Released. Without being content-complete. Let's say that again, "Released." With Starbound, we're talking about the very first stages of a beta test.

Secondly, Chucklefish has been extremely honest and forthcoming with what we should and shouldn't expect in beta. They also appear to be putting a lot of effort in with the changes that have already been made.

I'm sure that there are people out there who pre-purchased through Steam without having been to the website or read the forums or known exactly what Chucklefish has been saying about the game/beta. I'm sure that some of these people are surprised at the amount of content in the beta, and are unclear of what else and how much of it will be added before release. So what? This is not Chucklefish's fault, and they don't deserve to be blamed by knee-jerk reactionaries who are picking semantic arguments to essentially throw a fit.

If you are pre-purchasing a game, or paying for beta access to a game or even buying a game that's been out for years you should research. That's right, read something. Read the website. Read reviews. Talk to your friends. Read the games forums. If you don't do this, how can you complain about what you purchased? If you've been reading up on Starbound, you would know what to expect and you have no reason to blame anybody. If you haven't, then you only have reason to blame yourself.

The argument that people were "misled" by use of the word "beta" has no legs to stand on. Chucklefish stated exactly what Beta would be, and you can't show me any two other PC games where "beta" meant the exact same thing in both cases.

 

It is by definition an Alpha, they released it now because they know if they missed their estimate again they would have a LOT of angry customers. Most people do not understand that estimate means just that.

 

It isn't the customers job to investigate every single thread and word spoken by the developer of a game to make 100% sure that both he and that developer have the same concept of "Beta".
The industries abuse of the word also doesn't change its definition, or meaning. Saying that Starbound is a Beta is misleading, And I've personally had a good number of people ask me about the state of the game- and be turned away from a purchase upon hearing just how incomplete the game is.
People who came across the "How "beta" will work thread"-- Good for them. They knew what to expect and came into the picture with no surprises.
Theres a large portion of people who didn't see that thread, look for it, Or knew it even existed. And imo, they have every reason to be upset or disappointed.

Also, taken right from the steam page.
"Starbound is already extremely playable and contains a vast amount of content, however we decided to release the game as a beta through early access..." The store page doesn't even reference or point anyone in the direction of the "you no longer have a reason to complain" thread, and instead hypes itself up. (vast amount of content, lol) Why? To get more sales.
Its pretty straight forward and typical of this generation of game designers, But Regardless of whether you're okay with that or not, It is what it is.
And as far as "problems with starbound and chucklefish" this one isn't a very big issue to be quite frank. Who doesn't abuse the system in place now'a days?

 

Reading a few replies and then looking into the matter myself, this falls between the two clearly. Alpha generally are internal with maybe a few others or secondary testing team. However Alpha also generally is the period where features come and go at an alarming rate. However once the game is released beyond that handful it is a Beta Release so this is where it gets a bit complicated. It is at this point we can see that this is actually a Perpetual Beta where "new features and functionality are continually added to the software without establishing a firm 'final' release." Tim O'Reilly says, "The open source dictum, 'release early and release often', in fact has morphed into an even more radical position, 'the perpetual beta', in which the product is developed in the open, with new features slipstreamed in on a monthly, weekly, or even daily basis." However this isn't open source, but the idea still applies.

In conclusion Starbound shares both features of Alpha and Beta, and in turn is a perpetual Beta.

 

The only thing that defines a program, game or otherwise, as being an alpha, beta, or any other arbitrary designation build, is the term that the dev or devs use for it. In Starbound's case, the devs say it's in beta, so it's in beta.

Alphas sometimes move onward without new features, betas sometimes add features, RC builds occasionally have additional revised releases prior to the final build, in some cases one or more of those phases is skipped, others are sometimes added, there is no industry-wide mandatory format, it's all up to the devs.

Caveat emptor, Chucklefish has been very transparent with how their particular beta process was going to work, it isn't their job to ensure people don't buy their product based on assumptions.

 

Yep, Tiy described the current 'Progenitor' Beta pretty much exactly as it is. I don't feel misled at all, and am happy to have such an eminently playable experience this early.

 

I consider the state of the game, Late Alpha than Beta.

"Beta" is usually a buzzword, used just to advertise the game just before it comes out, nowadays. Usually painting a picture on how the game is going to be like when you actually get your hands on it. This is pretty much an late-alpha though, we don't know how the game will turn out in a years time.

Thing is, when your testing stuff out. Your going to need a fresh pair of eyes, or a few dozen of them, to get your stuff up to scratch. People usually won't know the difference between Alpha and Beta so its mostly understandable about the mix up. Once we get to stage two, then I think it will be safe enough to say it's a real "beta" now.

 

People prefer to pay money for a beta game than an alpha game, if you call it as a beta game, you sell more copies for sure.

 

I am not sure you're giving credit to some important words. "Early access" - whether it is prison architect, castle story, minecraft, or any other game. When someone reads the words "early access" I don't think developers aren't unreasonable to expect that person to understand this means it might be missing content and/or features. I love getting early access, but I don't expect the devs to spell out their process. The Starbound team did, which was very polite of them. I don't think they are responsible for more than the explanation this is a beta/early access release. This is "by and play at your own risk" time.

 

That's a rather absurd argument that no one is making. No one has said that you need to read 100% of everything. A quick read of a review, a forum sticky or two, and the FAQ is more than enough to know what the game is going to be like. To me, consumers who want to just buy things without information and then get mad at not getting what they expected without any base to form such expectations is the issue.

Seriously, if a product is listed as beta, pre-release, etc people need to do at least a little bit of reading to figure out what they're getting themselves into. It used to be that, within the gaming community, it was understood that you should do a good bit of reading for a beta test. Most beta tests had NDAs, beta testing agreements, and other such documents to read and sign before testing the product. When that way common, beta testers were far more in sync with the development team.

Beta testing is a process in which an incomplete game is tested and improved. If you wait until games are feature complete before a beta test, you're begging for issues. They already found a core system of the game that was flawed an needed fixing. It would have taken them FAR longer to fix the scaling of equipment and combat if they fully fleshed out the game before putting it into beta. Starting beta this early gives us the chance to give feedback and shape the direction of the game. It also gives them the chance to make a game that is better than if they released later. It's a win for both sides.

If you're that uncomfortable about the state of the game, take a step back and play it when it's complete enough for your tastes. The game will continue to progress, and you aren't going to suddenly loose the game because you take a break.

 

since when were Alpha ... and beta set in stone , i thought Dev's threw the terms around as they liked , it's just everyone got used to one word meaning something and the other meaning another , to me they both mean "a phase" + "incomplete" + "test"

 

It's an extraordinarily absurd argument, I'd say. No matter what platform one uses to buy the game, it's made abundantly clear the game is in an early access, test build, state. One cannot possibly purchase this game without receiving that information, through Steam or the Humble Store -- and further information via reviews and FAQ's, forum stickies, and the like, let alone the design road map and test build disclaimer, which is not opaque in any conceivable way, is additionally readily available.

This isn't a matter of doing "all" the reading, it's doing any reading. If consumers are hellbent on being so willfully unaware of the product they're purchasing they won't so much as read its own product information page, I can personally have no sympathy for them. This is not Aliens: Colonial Marines.

Now, onto the second point. Language and definitions change, especially vernacular, and the quicker a trade or industry evolves so does its language. The "traditional" definition of beta people are bandying about, here, has been out of vogue for nearly a decade; we're in the age of crowdsourcing and perpetual beta, here, and the industry (or at least, the indie side) is evolving faster than ever before with the advent of crowdfunding allowing development and testing to exist alongside building capital (ushering in the day of the early access). The term's connotation has changed to an umbrella term for pre-release builds, whether as a marketing scheme (as the case with triple-A developers/publishers) or crowdsourced testing (as the case with indie developers). Get over it.