Honestly why wouldn’t the suggestion I providea originally work.
The attitude given off seems to be “If you don’t like it, don’t do it” This applies as long as CoG has a surplus of testers.
I feel as if saying “If you don’t think you’ll be helpful in testing the game, you don’t have to” would be a better attitude, increasing the potential pool of testers but ensuring that unmotivated testers don’t take the spot of someone who would offer good feedback.
…that is what I’ve said all along. “Doesn’t sound like beta testing is for you!” The response was “Oh, but it is, if you’ll just make it more like how I want.” No one is being forced to beta test a game.
Of course, I was merely suggesting that although they believe there must be a system reform, that is because of their concerns as being seen as unhelpful testers or blacklisted.
All you guys have to do is say “If for whatever reason you can’t test the game to the best of your ability, that’s fine, just let us know and we’ll replace you with another tester whilst not majorly affecting your ability to test future games.” As is fair and rational.
This is less a logic problem than a problem with people. Do you give substandard help as to not seem unhelpful, but be seen as unhelpful, or admit you cannot give feedback to an acceptable standard due to whatever reason and be seen as unhelpful. The easy solution is to say it doesn’t really matter, we won’t ban you from testing as long as you actually explain why you dislike the game/ can’t beta it well and give good feedback elsewhere.
I’m sorry. I’m not sure what I did that made you think that saying you didn’t like a game would get you banned from future beta testing.
Can you help me understand why you think that?
Authors responding to feedback with stuff like “Doesn’t sound like this is for you” and “No one is forcing you to beta test” is actually my biggest worry with beta testing. In an open beta I can safely just say “Yeah, you’re right, good luck.” but in a closed beta I feel like I’m obligated to continue testing with someone who doesn’t have any interest in my input as anything other than a QA tester for a game I don’t personally enjoy playing. I had assumed that the whole point of closed beta testing was to find the testers who would provide the most consistently useful feedback to the authors and weed out those who didn’t.
I don’t think ‘Yeah, if this game isn’t your cup of tea it’s okay if you don’t test it’ is the same as ‘(them) not having interest in your input’
Has a Choice of Games author said that to you?
You feel that way, but this doesn’t seem based in reality/how beta testing works…
That’s not exactly the point of beta testing, no. The point is to test the game. We don’t beta test games to find beta testers. We do have beta testers.
Sure, if someone doesn’t provide very useful feedback or ghosts on us, then sure, they might not get to test again if they request to. But you’re basing your reactions here
as Jason points out, on a perceived fear that we’re not going to let you ever beta test a game if you don’t like the beta you sign up for.
A bit of a sidestep maybe, but would it perhaps be an idea to add the wordcount to the beta announcement?
So a potential tester would know if they sign up for a 50.000 or 300.000 word game?
Okay, it still tastes like waking up in my mouth, and this is a bit stream of consciousness, so give me a moment.
The thread thing is something we can do a fair bit more often, but functionally I think it’s only really useful if the author is actually on the forums, which is not necessarily the case for CoGs.
I think this is the fundamental difference between approaches. When I did beta test, I didn’t do it for the author, I did it for me and mine. I did it because I wanted the community to have a better game, and I wanted to make sure the kinds of things I think should go into every game were in there.
This. Jot things down as they come to you, or put something into record mode, keep stream of conscious thoughts, then condense whenever you stop reading. (This is what I do on HG rejections.) @Shoelip are you thinking you need good complete notes on a game before sending them back? Even if a set of notes are a mess they’re still notes. Even “I didn’t finish reading this game because XYZ” is useful feedback (insofar as XYZ is something more substantive than ‘I didn’t like it’). That is to say, I think we have a communication problem here, and we have different expectations, so I’m trying to figure out what exactly that is.
Naturally. And, tbh, in some cases unfortunately.
That wouldn’t accurately represent how their views are perceived (to them).
It is easy to mis-characterise a problem and easily fix that, it is harder to understand that often times responses meant to quickly and easily deal with a problem can be taken as dismissive
and discourage people from beta-ing as a whole and feeling as though whilst there are more testers to use their personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant.
I don’t see how people could feel as though they’d be banned for disliking a game, as I do it to give back to community and so try my hardest regardless, however as they do feel anxious/ weird about contacting the leaders/ staff over not being able to test well perhaps those who feel that way should say why. Personally, although you guys have enough testers I’d advise against doing the “we have enough testers, if you cannot be helpful or do not like the game that is your problem” as generally the CoG people seem pretty approachable and down-to-earth and in touch with the community.
Do understand that just because I’m not active in agreeing with something doesn’t mean I fundamentally disagree with it. A large part of what I do and don’t say is informed by trying to keep the peace.
Okay, yes, but now I believe we’re talking semantics and tone rather than substance. I agree with you that “If you don’t think you’ll be helpful in testing the game, you don’t have to” sounds better than “If you don’t like it, don’t do it” but I don’t think they have fundamentally different meanings.
Or, are you saying our approach in beta is indicative of this disconnect in and of itself?
Oh, oh, I didn’t meant it like that. I meant that it’s unfortunate (as in bit sad) when author’s don’t really interact with the community here.
Then again, we can be quite a bit of a weird and intimidating bunch.
Sorry if I’ve delved into semantics too much here-- I just believe this is a semantic, not systematic, problem.
If they have the same fundamental meaning, and also the first sounds better, perhaps adopting the first would help. From what I can tell, people care more about how you guys perceive them and how helpful they can be (which is oddly sweet) than changing the whole system. As a result, just promoting the idea that it’s no biggie to not love a game and that you won’t be out of favour for not offering amazing feedback.
I’ve always assumed private, email betas had to be very in depth and clear, and so I make more like reports of bugs and suggestions rather than short quick fixes, however ITT I’ve been told 2 hours is more like how long you spend on the game, so I may have been doing too much.
Correct. When I say “It doesn’t sound like it’s for you,” I have been referring to the basic contract at play in beta testing, and the complaint here, which is that the contract isn’t set up in a way that the user(s) like. I.e., they only want to test games that they enjoy, and are fun for them to test, and would like a way to better determine whether they’ll enjoy testing a game. So sure, if that contract is set up in a way you don’t like, then…absent us changing anything…it doesn’t sound like it’s for you.
When you go to a restaurant, you cannot eat the entire meal, and then simply demand not to pay for it because you didn’t like it. If you don’t want to pay for what you ordered, you have to give a reason, and do so before you eat the whole plate of food. If you prefer to go to restaurant, eat a meal, and then if you didn’t like it, expect to not pay for it, then I would say “Eating at restaurants is probably not for you.”
@fairlyfairfighter I don’t have personal expectations about how many hours people spend on a beta. Jason may, but since that isn’t stated anywhere in the beta threads, I don’t think so. When I say 2 hours, I’m thinking of the bare minimum you could do when you sign up for a beta and it turns out you don’t actually like the game after all.
If we use the coffee shop analogy, it’s more like people testing out new products (although in the testing nothing is lost by the company in reality, except perhaps time), and when discovering they dislike the coffee they make a minimum report (e.g. 2 hours mentioned) and go on to test something else, or join some sort of coffee-hipster group or whatever coffee drinkers do.
I don’t think anyone has a problem with you blacklisting people who ‘don’t pay’ or rather offer no feedback, however the underlying threat (or perhaps condition would be a better word) that if your feedback isn’t good (e.g. if constantly the bare minimum) means that they believe this will apply to them too-- as if their positive contributions are disregarded and the ones you see as bad or not up to standard result in them not being able to test any new sweet, sweet coffee.
But I’ve only drunk coffee like twice, so idk if sweet coffee is good or bad.
Saying “If you don’t think you’ll be helpful in testing the game, you don’t have to” is basically the exact same message however is less likely to unnecessarily worry people who it isn’t aimed at.
But then again I only partially feel this myself, so it’d probably be best to hear what other people (the majority, rather) think before changing a whole system based on the possible problems of 2 or 3 people.
Actually I’m totally fine with not hearing from anyone else! As I said, the team will talk about it.
You’re mistaking my analogy. I’m not saying beta testing is like ordering meal and not wanting to pay for it, I’m saying that how we do betas has a basic contract in play: sign up, give decent feedback, play a game for free, get a credit on the game.
A restaurant (or shop, or whatever) also has a contract in play. If you don’t like the terms of that contract, don’t eat in a restaurant.
Social contracts: if you dislike it when the sidewalk has litter on it, pick it up and throw it away. If you don’t like touching litter, but you also want the sidewalk to be clean…then picking up litter “isn’t for you.”
Aha my bad, I though you were comparing the testers to the kinda people that do that in restaurants, which are pretty bad people. Whilst you do have a good point, the problems more with how people view the contract. Many probably see it as “I will have a chance to give feedback to develop the game, make it better and give back to the community” when really you guys see it as “I am giving them the opportunity to play the game, for free, and give them a credit for only 2 hours worth of feedback, therefore if they are not suited to testing they are under no obligation to as there are a surplus of testers.”
The original problem
Can easily be fixed by disillusioning people from the belief if they dislike a game and cannot offer good feedback they won’t be picked for future testing.
Or you could just say that regardless of how much they like or dislike the game all that matter is quality, and as the contract is mutually beneficial CoG does not owe the tester anything, and they can easily be replaced by someone who can offer the same, if not better, levels of feedback.
I’d say no.1 would be taken better but I am not a master linguist, so the second could too be used, as they are both pretty valid.
But…the original person apparently sees it as “an opportunity to contribute to only games I enjoy testing.” Which was never on offer. And still isn’t, though we’re considering whether to offer this by means of giving a chapter/s demo for each beta.
I think we have, certainly in this thread.
And the testing is “unpaid labor” whether you like the game or not. 