I'm seeing more and more of this stuff pop up on Steam. Especially noteworthy now since you also saw several of them going for sale during the winter sale. I can't help but feel we've opened some kind of Pandora's Box here.

So they're essentially betas that you pay for. Or even alphas in some cases. The classic notion of betas used to be that a select amount of individuals play your game for no charge and are expected to find and report as many bugs and problems as they can, so they can be ironed out for release. I think I first started to notice a change in this paradigm back when the World of Warcraft beta was going on. It was moreso about trying out a cool game for free than actually testing (although Blizzard appear to be one of the few who still take this stuff seriously).

Then things really shifted once we entered the 360/PS3 era. Betas suddenly started appearing on consoles too, but they were clearly being treated much more like promotional material and incentives that were given out for pre-ordering the game or purchasing another game (I think it was Crackdown 2 that pretty much sold itself on "buy this to get the Halo 3 beta"?). This development also neatly coincides with the death of demos.

Which brings us to the current situation where more and more of these "Early Access" games are appearing on Steam that you flat out pay for to gain the privilege of "testing". It's particularly rampant with these online survival type games that are now appearing in droves in the wake of DayZ. The usual claim is that you get to be much more involved with the development and direction of the game. But I've just grown far too cynical to take that stuff at face value. It seems very evident to me with these types of survival games that it's more about quickly cashing in on the trend and luring in players with the enthusiasm they have at the moment for DayZ-like games.

This stuff is no doubt going to spread from Steam to the consoles once publishers see how lucrative this is. I saw an Angry Joe video about this subject, and he said that the Mechwarrior Online "beta" has been going on for over a year now, with barely any of the major issues fixed, but they do have a fully functional microtransaction shop! That's probably the kind of stuff we can expect to become the norm.

The only Early Access game I've purchased is Starbound, and it seems that they're living up to their word and are actively implementing fixes and player suggestions, so good on them. I've considered purchasing a "founder's pack" for Everquest Next landmark but questioned wether it's really worth it (especially since this will be a F2P game).

For some odd reason, gamers seem to think that being able to say, "I was playing before you ever did!" is some kind of badge of honor. In the old days, if it mattered at all, it was because a player was selected to participate in a beta test. Today? Players buy their way in, which actually has me laughing at them.

Why? Because Tom Sawyer and the whitewash fence comes to mind. Game publishers and developers have got players thinking that games are so great now, that testing for their company requires a player to pay for the privilege, instead of providing a service to the company.

So, as I actually ignored those players of old with the, "I beta tested .", I find myself actually laughing at players that pay to do this now.

However, as long as players are willing to part with their money, game companies can not be faulted for eagerly helping them part with their money

A lot of the time you are also paying for the final product as well, this just means you get to play it earlier. Sometimes it's also at a lower price than the final game as well.

I've gotten a few of them, like Arma 3, because it was far cheaper than what it costs now.

If the game publisher wants to offer me a price that would be lower than Retail, I might participate in Beta for a game I really like.

But, I have to say, that the Beta Testing I have done, is not that much fun. I would much rather wait for a "Ready for Prime Time" game.

I believe the underlying purpose behind most early access games isn't so much beta testing as it is releasing a semi-finished game whose true finished state isn't clearly defined. The developers have ideas of what the finished product might include but in order for any of those ideas to be realized they need to start generating revenue before they can continue development. So they finish creating the framework for their game, release that (often at reduced price) as an early access game and production continues.

I personally think it's a great system when done properly. If the base game is good enough all the patches that get released almost feel like free DLCs.

I can see the appeal of early access for developers (cheap QA, bit of marketing, being able to soft-release a still buggy product and getting away with it).

That said, I personally stay away from them. The only beta I bought in was Minecraft, and while that was a positive experience, I don't feel the need to buy early access games with the backlog of games I already have. So I disregarded every early-access title during the Steam sales, even when the new Awesomenauts expansion was mistakenly marked to be 75% (?) off instead of the intended 50%.

I feel like I'm personally going in the complete opposite direction of what early access encompasses, I'm waiting for goty/gold editions and even then waiting until those are discounted enough. Again, my current backlog makes it that I can be very picky in what I buy, so I no longer consider buying early access or full priced games.

That said, I don't mind that early access exists, although I would like it if Steam would allow a filter to filter those games off of the new releases list.

If people want to pay money for an unfinished product, so be it.

Some might argue that companies have already been doing this, but just not calling it pay for beta

I've never understood the rush to get some early software. To me I want to pay for the polished product and avoid disappointment of crashes.

there is nothing at all inherently wrong with the concept. it saves money on hiring QA firms and allows more direct feedback from consumers during fairly key points of development.

i do think steam should do a better job of clarifying what games are early access, though, as well as things like excluding early access games from going on sale, but all of that falls under "steam is an outdated piece of [censored] and they're never going to fix any of it".

i also think people need to stop complaining when the games are too expensive. this goes for reviewers, too. people whining about dayz costing $30 despite being a buggy piece of [censored] are completely missing the entire point of that price - to discourage anyone from buying it unless they really genuinely care about the project and want to help break it during development.

you're not buying an unfinished game to play it, you're buying into the chance to help develop it. there's a pretty massive difference there.