Soft launches were rare in the golden time of video games. 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 games, for the most part, were played only after they were completed printed, packaged, and shipped. Even on PC beta testing, it was more of an honor only for players who showed dedication to the game and its community.
In these days of Internets and constantly-on devices However, things are different. MINECRAFT-SERVER-LIST.CO Developers only need to create enough game content to create a convincing trailer before the publishing team can start collecting money by putting a sticker with the "BETA" label on the webpage and giving fans early access.
Soft launches have become more common over the past few years, particularly for online game creators. The line between "in testing" and "done" is becoming blurred, and publishers are reaping the rewards while players are suffering.
You keep using that word
A quick clarification that if players pay for access to the game in any way, form or form, it's not a beta. It's an official launch. It does not matter what the publisher calls it. Beta testing is a process offered by passionate fans who are interested in seeing a title succeed; it should never ever cost players money to aid a publisher or developer work out the kinks in games.
Live cash shop? Launch. Founders pack up-front payments? Launch. Anything with a dollar sign on the page for downloading? Launch. Publishers that accept payments from players in exchange for access to the game or other products are considered to be in beta. The term "beta" indicates that a game requires more testing. If the game isn't fully developed, if its in-game items aren't tested, or in the event that it offers an experience that is in any way insufficient or unfinished, it's irresponsible and unethical to take any amount of money from players until those issues are resolved.
This is distinct from crowdfunding. In crowdfunding, players back an idea and hope that it will be realized. Soft launches however require funds to fund a product that is not yet ready for release, but has been developed. The promise made with crowdfunding is "We'll do our best to make this a reality." The promise made during a soft launch is "We will likely repair all the broken parts eventually, but in the meantime please keep buying things in our cash shop."
Indie developers who depend on early payments to keep their games running have a lot to be grateful for. Without paid betas, for instance, Minecraft wouldn't be a thing. However, Minecraft and similar games are closer to crowdfunding than early access, since they're typically open about the fact that the game isn't yet ready to be seen by the general gaming public. Participants in paid betas are aware of what they're buying and are aware that the product they're purchasing may not work correctly.
You'd need to inquire Neverwinter players who were subject to exploit-driven rollbacks if they received the same disclaimer.
The QA process is an honor
If there's a player out there willing to suffer through a broken, ineffective game for the sake of improving it and more enjoyable, the publisher should be paying person for the service -- not the other way around. Quality Assurance, also known as QA is usually an outsourced or in-house job at a games company where employees are paid to oversee the game's performance. However, publishers have convinced an overwhelming majority of the gaming community that this is an option that can be unlocked by investing earlier than the rest of the market.
Before this was the norm, players needed to pay to play. It was a simple process. Players pay money to get the promise of a game that's eventually worth playing. And, hey do you want to test it along the way? There is no final product. Just a series of constantly-changing updates. The game could and does change, and it doesn't matter if it becomes something that players enjoy. The money is already in the bank.
There's no obligation in the case of a soft launch. Publishers can open the cash shop and line up the rewards for the founders pack, but at no point in the purchasing process is it ever established what "finished" actually means. There's plenty of language in EULAs about betas being betas, possible wipes, resets, or other issues that may occur and the publisher isn't responsible if servers go down for a few days or if the game wipes any hard drive on which it is installed. For those who are seeking details on when their investment can be considered officially returned will be disappointed.
Soft launches are a major issue and their rise in popularity is alarming. They've created a scenario where publishers are able to outsource QA testing and force those people into paying for it. If the server goes down, the cash shop items change, or an enormous round of wipes or rollbacks cause financial losses to passionate players there's no problem.
Players can choose to stop paying for games that aren't finished or stop complaining about games that aren't yet finished, but still have fully functional cash shops as well as "early-adopter" payment levels.
It's either one of the other.
Everyone has opinions and The Soapbox is how we enjoy ours. Join the Massively writers each Tuesday as we take turns atop our soapbox to deliver unfettered editorials a bit outside our norms, and not necessarily shared by Massively as the whole. Are you certain that we're right? Let us know in the comments!