Stop Funding Companies to Test Their Games

You may have noticed that one of the latest articles I contributed to the site (besides this one) explored the recent modifications to Bokura’s testing purchase strategies during the closed beta test of Blue Protocol: Star Resonance. This led me to reconsider the trend of compensating developers before their games are fully ready for release.

A beta test is intended to serve as a trial. I understand that this isn’t the case now, as many of them are like a soft launch. Over time, soft launches combined with testing have evolved into a method for companies to generate revenue for games, including those that are free-to-play. To be fair, the gaming community shares some of the blame for this trend. We tend to be overly eager to invest in the latest offerings, even when they’re often incomplete, and in the worst-case scenarios, may never fully launch.

But just look at our current situation. An increasing number of players are willing to invest in testing games, and even when these games are officially launched, they frequently still show significant shortcomings. Some take an extraordinarily long time to address these issues, leaving MMOs struggling, with only the most persistent players remaining.

By participating in this practice, we’re signaling to developers that it’s acceptable if we don’t receive corresponding value for our expenditure. And though some of us have the disposable income for this, let’s be truthful—many of us do not.

I’m not suggesting that I want game developers to suffer financially. Quite the opposite. I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of supporting projects in advance. We’ve invested in various Kickstarter initiatives, and many would likely do so again. That said, in my view, contributing to projects in this manner should be reserved for companies that lack alternative funding sources. We also need to recognize that there are no guarantees we will ever receive the final product. As we’ve learned, the completion of projects is never assured.

In these cases, we’re acknowledging that the developer lacks sufficient funds to create the game, and the project sounds intriguing enough for us to believe in its potential.

However, when dealing with established companies that have ample financial support, we should expect games to be beyond the testing phase when we invest our money. (For those curious, Bokura is apparently backed by Tencent, though Star Resonance is their debut offering.)

Of course, live service games are never truly “completed.” There will always be new content to introduce as the narrative progresses and developers devise new ways to retain players. This is anticipated and acceptable as it enhances the initial project, even if updates occasionally lead to complications.

When such issues arise, and if a game becomes unplayable, we retain the right to withhold our financial support until matters improve. This is especially pertinent for free-to-play titles. We are not obligated to purchase in-game currency or subscribe to battle passes, and we shouldn’t if the product does not meet quality standards.

So, why do we continue to invest in games that are still in testing, not finalized, and may never even launch? Especially when dealing with financially stable companies? It seems somewhat irrational on our part and suggests that these companies need not prioritize the actual quality of their games, since we are willing to pay them before completion.

Regarding the Star Resonance situation… As I mentioned in my earlier post, I believe the ideal approach to testing shops would be for the developer to provide players with in-game currency for use during the test phase. This would eliminate the need for refunds or alternative compensation for players. The currency and items would simply be removed following the completion of the test. This method has proven successful for many other developers.