Sign In

### Topic

#### My new Glitch article..

...thought you'd like to read up on my article, examing the purpose behind charging players while in a beta state: massively.joystiq.com/2012/...
Thanks!
Beau

Posted 5 months ago by Beau | Permalink

### Replies

- Will read it!
  ETA: Done. I'll share my thoughts later, but I do not see it as a concern.
  Posted 5 months ago by Juju Boss | Permalink
- Well said, sir!
  Posted 5 months ago by Djabriil | Permalink
- Wow.... I don't mean to be hateful or anything - on the contrary, it's always nice to see articles and exposure for Glitch. However, having played Glitch for quite a while now, this article strikes me as being rather poorly informed. The main things you seem to talk about are how registration and invites are closed, and whether the game should be charging players real money for anything during a beta. The main reason registration is closed right now isn't to limit the population; it's because they're reworking the tutorial (and making good progress with it, if this thread is any indication.) As for charging things for things during a beta.... for better or for worse, that really isn't that uncommon anymore, especially when companies need to cover the costs of further development. However, Glitch is also a bit of a special case, as this is the second time it's been in beta. The game has already had a full release (albeit brief) where registration was completely open, which is how many of us (myself included) got to start playing. Of course, nobody will argue that it's unreasonable to start charging in a game post-release. However, as they continued to develop the game, they decided they need to overhaul some of the major systems in the game, so they put the game back into beta to reflect that, and the associated turbulence. Thus, the current beta is less about testing and bugfixing as it is about restructuring and feedback. In fact, it's been rather amazing thus far how few bugs we've gotten in along with our regular updates. So, given that, plus the fact that they won't be doing a wipe, I don't really see why they can't start charging for things now. (And yes, I know that you seemed okay with the idea in the article, too.)
  Well, hopefully that should help to clear things up a bit for you (as well as anyone else), and not just be a wall of text.
  Posted 5 months ago by Zigniber | Permalink
- @Zigniber I'd read the last paragraph of the article. He says he's getting his money worth and thinks Tiny Speck is in the right bounds for asking money, only because the game is in such good shape for a beta.
  Posted 5 months ago by Draron | Permalink
- Yeah, I know, I just have a bad tendency to over-explain things. And actually, it looks like a lot of the comments on the article itself are saying similar things.
  Posted 5 months ago by Zigniber | Permalink
- Seems like a very fair review of the monetary value of the game. Yes, charging for a beta is somewhat questionable. So he has every right to question it but then he goes on to assert that we are getting a good value for our money. OK so far...
  However, what is completely missing from the review is any mention of what makes Glitch unique and compelling. Nothing about our non-violent, non-pvp gameplay. Nothing about our community, our quirkiness, our generosity, our openness. Nothing about what makes us US!
  Reading his review, you might think we are just another attack based rpg!** I don't follow this blog so perhaps all the other readers are aware of how unique we are. But I think there should be at least some mention of our special qualities before he starts to go on about the money...
  ** edit: I wasn't very clear. I just meant that a reader unfamiliar with Glitch might assume it was an ordinary, default, generic, pvp, fighting style game. I don't have any dispute with what the author said; it is what he didn't say about the nature of the Glitch that I thought made the piece less helpful.
  Posted 5 months ago by Miss Bobbit | Permalink
- Where do you get "attack based rpg"? He mentions housing and furniture, that sort of thing, but I dunno what would lead you to gather what you said from his article.
  Posted 5 months ago by Djabriil | Permalink
- Maybe "attack based rpg" is just another way of saying "mmo", since so very many of them are attack based rpg's. At least, to my eye, but I am not an inveterate gamer. That became additionally clear to me reading this because until that moment I was not aware there was any criticism attached to having beta players pay (for whatever) in a game.
  As a beta player, I had several gift credits put on my account, and a free period of subscription before I ever had to shell out any money for a sub, and when it came time to decide about purchasing, I got an extra bonus for purchasing AND a discounted great price for my chosen sub level. Plus, as a commenter on the article pointed out...the game is free to play and always has been. There is no area of Ur that is roped off from non-sub players, or where access is awarded to sub players first.
  The gaming industry is not exactly a nascent industry, and beta access has been a highly desirable thing for game consumers for some time, even a casual gamer like me gets that. I don't think TS is "monetizing" that desire in this case, but it makes sense to me that they should be allowed to elect when and what they will provide in exchange for currency, even if that occurs during a beta period.
  What I don't understand, and continue to bewail, is the ongoing egregious lack of MERCH.
  Posted 5 months ago by Nanookie | Permalink
- Understandable, but can't wait to open at least the invites
  Posted 5 months ago by Minoas | Permalink
- heh...it's no "review". That column is an opinion column...notice the tags. :) I've written about/played and livestreamed Glitch for a long time. I put up a simple question, and answered it. I didn't need to cover every single detail about how or why they are charging during a beta because the question from my audience is never "can you give me all the details about how exactly and how much they are charging for each individual..."
  No, it's always "They're charging for a BETA?!"
  So, there ya go. :)
  Beau
  Posted 5 months ago by Beau | Permalink
- Nice article, Beau :). I think you're right to pose the question, because most betas that I'm aware of are completely free. The trade-off being that you have to deal with all the bugs that wouldn't be in the live version and after the beta period, your character will be wiped and you'll have to start from scratch. Glitch may have bugs, but as you said it's a pretty polished experience overall. And the devs have already said that they probably won't completely restart the game.
  My only criticism is that I think you could have pointed out that all money spent for in-game currency during beta will be effectively doubled once the game goes live. I know I probably wouldn't spend nearly as much as I do if I wasn't secure in the knowledge that the 150 credits I pay for today will turn into another 150 credits as soon as the game comes out of beta :P. Always glad to see more exposure for Glitch, thanks for writing about it :).
  ~Rae
  Posted 5 months ago by Raevyn Grovemother | Permalink
- Good article Beau. You bring up some interesting points.
  And IMO this is why they should have called it Gamma instead Beta after de-launch. We had a Beta prior to launch in Sept/Oct 2011...other than lack of open signups, this is way different than the original Beta - it's open full time, there is a promise of no resets of characters, and even the updates/releases are a lot less problematic than the ones in the original Beta. I think that's truly the big issue...this really isn't Beta as much as it's a Gamma.
  Posted 5 months ago by Uniquely Prime | Permalink