Alpha and beta are really meant for players to provide feedback and help test things out before it’s ready. That’s why so many video games offer free alpha/beta test versions. You’re doing them a favor by trying out their half-baked game/app.

I think that this is really where I’m at:

1. If the main purpose of having players on the game is to test systems/theme/etc and the features are not complete, I think it’s Alpha.
2. If the main purpose of having players on the game is to test systems/theme/etc and the features are (nearly) complete, I think it’s Beta.
3. If the main purpose of having players on the game is to tell stories and play the game and the features are complete, I think it’s Gold/Release – even if there are still going to be additions made to the game later.

Those are just my definitions, of course, and I wouldn’t expect anyone else would stick to them (although it would be nice for me if they did).

Game developers have long since abandoned the mainstream software development definitions of alpha and beta.

Game-Alpha at this point means “Anything might be broken, we might wipe the database, major features may be missing, expect a rough experience where you might have to help us debug things actively.”

Game-Beta means “We think we’ve finished everything important, now let’s test.”

Basically Game-Alpha is what used to be, well, “Still in development”, and Game-Beta is what used to be alpha.

Then you’ve got Liberation which called the game Beta because we knew we were never going to catch all the missing kinks and House Rules without having real players.

And we’re still in beta because we’re missing the Umbral grid (after a failed experiment with using umbral descs for the grid), specialties, and honestly at this point probably not much else as we approach two years since the soft beta opening.

Hah, this just goes to show that terms are so easily malleable, as my experience with this phrase is very much the opposite.

Exactly - that’s what I was alluding to earlier when I noted that there isn’t a strong consensus about what exactly alpha/beta means even in the software industry.

Steam, at least, provides some guidelines. Basically “Early Access” there can include alpha/beta games, but I’ve also seen it used for games that are nearly done.

Steam Early Access enables you to sell your game on Steam while it is still being developed, and provide context to customers that a product should be considered “unfinished.” Early Access is a place for games that are in a playable alpha or beta state, are worth the current value of the playable build, and that you plan to continue to develop for release.

…

Make sure you set expectations properly everywhere you talk about your game.
…
Don’t launch in Early Access without a playable game.

“Early Access” in video games, at least, usually refers to a game that’s ready for release, or very nearly so.

Hah, this just goes to show that terms are so easily malleable, as my experience with this phrase is very much the opposite.

Ultimately, the things I’d want before I start a game are things like: Is there a CG? Are the terms unique to the game explained anywhere? Do you have rules or policies set out anywhere? And who do I inundate with questions when data isn’t available?

And if it’s an alpha/beta: Will the game world refresh upon “release?” What things do you want seriously tested? And what things that are available are pretty much set to how you want them to be regardless of input?

People expect a continuous update cycle, with tweaks and the like. Even DLC. But they also know that, while a 1.0 release won’t be perfect, it is expected to be feature complete. We see the backlash against video games that “release” in an incomplete or buggy state all the time.

That’s going to depend on the game, really. Many games (and apps) release new features regularly, not just tweaks/DLCs.

But I do think we’re in agreement on several core points. Certainly players expect 1.0 to be “feature complete” and stable (i.e., not too buggy). All I’m saying is that the creator defines what “feature complete” means in the first place. It’s all about setting and managing expectations.

“Early Access” in video games, at least, usually refers to a game that’s ready for release, or very nearly so. Alpha and beta are really meant for players to provide feedback and help test things out before it’s ready. That’s why so many video games offer free alpha/beta test versions. You’re doing them a favor by trying out their half-baked game/app.

I think he’s pretty typical of what most people expect with software nowadays, with continuous update cycles being pretty ubiquitous.

I think we’re speaking at somewhat cross-purposes here. People expect a continuous update cycle, with tweaks and the like. Even DLC. But they also know that, while a 1.0 release won’t be perfect, it is expected to be feature complete. We see the backlash against video games that “release” in an incomplete or buggy state all the time.

So somewhere there is a delineation between work in progress and final product, even if that final product needs tweaking and has further development on it.

Perhaps, to steal more parlance from the software/gaming world, what we consider alpha and/or beta in MUing is more akin to a game being in Early Access?

But in general parlance, an alpha or beta build is ‘not finished yet’, and a release is ‘finished.’

I don’t think that’s necessarily accurate.

For instance, my son played this one video game in alpha, then in beta. He was excited for it to finally be “released” this week, but he’s also already looking forward to the next bugfix patch and fully expects there to be a DLC out later this year or next.

I think he’s pretty typical of what most people expect with software nowadays, with continuous update cycles being pretty ubiquitous.

Most software changes over time. “Beta” traditionally hasn’t reflected finality so much as stability.

I know that. You know that. But in general parlance, an alpha or beta build is ‘not finished yet’, and a release is ‘finished.’ Accurate or not, that’s where many folk will come from with the labels.

Which is fine, I’m just wondering if we should discard the idea of a “final version” entirely.

Most software changes over time. “Beta” traditionally hasn’t reflected finality so much as stability. There can always be a new patch, upgrade, or DLC, but at least the features you’ve got now can be expected to work.

How that translates to non-software things like story and rules is interesting though.

especially in the ad section.

Yeah, that was definitely a fail on the admin end. The critique was a little barbed for the ad section, but it was on us to ensure the discussion was split.

I think especially with Ares, the circle of people who can run games has expanded. I’m so grateful for that. I didn’t see everything that transpired on the thread that inspired this conversation (just saw the first few posts, and looked at the link!). I’ll be honest, to me, the site seemed fine. On par with a lot of other games I’ve seen do a soft open. I don’t know the source material at all since I don’t watch TV or movies much these days, so maybe that’s why I think some of the criticism I did see briefly (I was running out the door for RL shortly after opening their link) seemed a little…unnecessary to me, especially in the ad section.

It’s hard. As a community our habits are what they are. And jumping in to critique ideas for new games is a very big habit. As is, sometimes the destructive rush to a new game and the fallout from that. It doesn’t always happen but it’s a pattern. I wish we had a little more grace to new things. I hope the answer isn’t “nobody should post here about seeking people to come check things out and play in alpha.”

@Roadspike I DEFINITELY think the ‘beta’ tag is something we over-used in SL (and are avoiding over-using in the same way in Shattered in terms of having a hard ‘final form’ date). I AM curious if there are games that have achieved a better emergence from it than ‘we had a whole other previous-gen game we learned from’ lol.

I’m more curious if any game has ever actually considered itself “feature complete.” Most games I’ve played on in the last… five years or so are constant works in progress. Which is fine, I’m just wondering if we should discard the idea of a “final version” entirely.

Keep making games.

Open them in alpha. In beta. In gold purple yellow upsidedown whatever makes you feel better, but keep doing it.

Some with amazing fully-fleshed wikis and grids will flop. Some with four rooms and an ugly-ass splash-page will soar.

Make it till you think it’s playable and go from there.

If a game is advertising /here/ or somewhere for alpha, they maybe don’t have enough personal friends and contacts to fill it out with their musher roladex for the testing things out/ finding their pace.

Yeah, I’ll admit, I prefer a pretty ‘closed garden’ for alpha, of hand-picked people who you want to bash against mostly mechanical issues and give feedback on more-or-less written theme/policies that is both relatively open but also…you think they will vibe with the thing you are trying to do, people who don’t vibe with it or have more questionable vibes kind of aren’t the point of it at that level, for me. I think it’s very important in any kind of ‘baby’ testing stage to know who you’re making a game for and tailor it to that audience. If it hits wider, great! Wonderful! That’s for beta! But I don’t want to deal with a lot of ‘this isn’t made for me’ feedback during alpha testing. I probably wouldn’t do a purely public alpha, honestly, tho if it’s worked for people, great.

If a game is advertising /here/ or somewhere for alpha, they maybe don’t have enough personal friends and contacts to fill it out with their musher roladex for the testing things out/ finding their pace.

So I’m gentle with my expectations ecause it possibly means they don’t have as much experience or they are dipping back in for awhile. Which might be great or a little rough so I just try to have relatively open ended expectations.

I do not expect fully formed wiki writeups. I dont even expect it from beta considering how many games I have played medium to long term NEVER get their full documentation up in an accessible way.

If a game advertises itself as ready to launch (not alpha/beta) i do expect more documentation, staff planning, ect but again I’ve seen successful (providing regular rp for many people) for long periods of time and never get out of beta probably because people forgot to announce or coding isn’t were runners want it to be, staff had to take time off, ect).

@Pavel Well you can do both - have the label as a general “game not fully baked” warning and then prominently in the introduction explain what YOU mean by that label.

True, I meant it as a sort of self-check when making a game, more than any policy that must be implemented in all discussions. Start with the description first, then pick the label that fits best. So that way you remember to actually figure out the description, I know I can’t be the only one who sticks with simple labels without taking the time to explain what they actually mean in my context.

Both mean the thing is “not done”, but even that definition is almost meaningless if you don’t know what the creators think “done” means.

So I think it’s less about the labels themselves and more about each game making it clear what they mean by each label.

@Roadspike said in What Is Alpha Anyway?:

Gold
I strongly believe that games should actually Go Gold at some point in their lifespan. So many games go into Open Beta and never go beyond that, and I believe that that’s disingenuous.

I mean, what if they don’t get to that point? Should they instead not open? I don’t get this - or specifically, I guess I don’t get the strength of this opinion.

I agree that many games don’t get to that point, and I’d change the ‘strongly believe they should Go Gold’ to something more like 'strongly believe they should aim to Go Gold - or otherwise meeting the conditions of having their theme, code, policies, etc set if not in stone then at least something more solid than the ether.

ETA: That said, I think ‘what needs to be done in beta and what should come after beta’ is a harder conversation, because you are dealing with a live game at that point. The nice thing about alpha, whatever it is, is that you can rip it up and throw away elements of it.