The Dead Duck Syndrome

But what about the case where a game is released and people pay money but the developer either can't fix the problems or hears overwhelmingly negative feedback to the point that the product is effectively a dead duck? Maybe products that fall into this category deserve to die an early death.

And as for the folks that shell out early: "you pay your money and you take your chance." Early buyers risk an orphaned beta quality product in exchange for the chance to get their hands on the latest-greatest-thing-wannabe. Doesn't sound like a palatable risk? Then don't buy early.

Some will call this process paying to beta test. If you are one of these, then you shouldn't be an early buyer. Others, however, will applaud the chance to financially support developers whose wares they enjoy and will consider the chance to pay for earlier access to the code an investment in their hobby: feed the goose that lays the golden eggs. This is me, by the way, in case it's not obvious ;-).

Industrial Strength Advantage

What about the industry perspective? Why would any sane company want to adopt such an early release process? Why did Microprose release early? Were they entirely unaware of the beta status of the code?

Of course not. They were under pressure from all sides: from those who had waited four years to see Falcon4, and from Hasbro Execs who were concerned to begin garnering a return on their investment.

And therein lies the potential for the developer. A process of early release has the potential for producing an ealier revenue stream. Using the net will also cut production costs, at least in media and packaging, I'd wager.

Furthermore, if the process becomes defined, instead of partially accidental as it seems to be in the case of Falcon4, these early buyers will effectually partners in the development process, helping to nail down the last 10% of bugs - always the hardest to find.

Suppose the early adopters find a lame duck that should be shot sooner rather than later? That too is valuable information for a developer, who can then reassess the need for further investment or euthanasia. Otherwise wasted development funds could be saved and invested elsewhere.

Click to continue

The Bottom Line

Boil this down a bit... Just because the retail release/patch cycle is what we face today, doesn't mean that it's the only way. Remember, it wasn't too long ago that the software retail channel didn't exist either.

I happen to think that Internet distribution will win because of it's innate ability to sate the capitalistic demand for instant gratification. Furthermore, this system will likely be cheaper to operate once the marketing types figure out the issue of capturing the right market audience participants when they're online.

You Say You Wanna Revolution

Historically, some revolutions are planned, and others occur by happy chance. With the early release of Falcon4 and the commitment to not only follow through but to expand the Falcon4 universe, MPS has stumbled onto something new and attractive. It would have been handled more smoothly if this had been the plan all along, but someone at MPS has seen the light. What I am suggesting is that developers now plan and staff to do things this way.

Not to say that software quality a la Janes wouldn't be better from the outset, I just think that getting there behind closed doors may not need to be the only way.

There's a win-win struggling to be birthed for both producers and hard-core early adopters, and maybe, just maybe, game producers with horribly underfunded test programs might end up with a greater chance of reaching good product quality with some outside help and early financial support.