Not a fan of the insider alpha testing scheme

[GlideBy 324]

47 minutes ago, nickhod said:

And to get feedback and improve the game.

Lots of replies seem to be along the lines of "they couldn't do early access, they need proper structured testing".
If your plan for formal, structured testing is recruiting randoms off the interwebs, you're crazy.

They do it for money and feedback, and testing.  The way Microsoft is doing it is just for feedback amd testing.  It takes the money out of it.  I think having to pay money to test a unfinished product is just wrong.  And for a company that can well afford it, it becomes questionable.

47 minutes ago, nickhod said:

This is early access, but only for the chosen few

No, this is a Alpha test.  The devs want to test their product with their core market, not just the ones that have money to buy their way into an Alpha or Early Access.

47 minutes ago, nickhod said:

By playing it early, or you would have waited to give feedback when it launched.

If I wait until launch, the product is done.  All they can do is make minor changes.  We already have a ton of people saying how great it looks, and don't criticize it since is Alpha or it looks better than what we have.  All I can really report that they will work on at that time, will be bugs.

47 minutes ago, nickhod said:

No, I said I would have preferred them either to have let everyone test, no one test, or been totally up front about entry requirements and made it first come, first served.

The no one test, is what I was commenting on.  If you were in, you would have no complaints.  As for then being totally upfront, you make it sound like they lied.  It is their Alpha, maybe they don't know what or who they want to test until the build is done or they see what choices they have.  And if they did post entry requirements, people would complain that "I have those specs but still didn't get in, so Microsoft lied. "

Last I looked there were 25,000 people that didn't get in that wanted in.  (I won't reveal the source of that, so you can ignore if you wish).  More people want in than will get in at this stage.  Doing an Early Access would be too much for them, so they would need to limit it anyway as they have too many people.  And they would limit it to the specs and people they want anyway, as they are not ready for 4GB systems.  End result is the same, or worse you still aren't in and you are out money.

I think Microsoft has done the right thing to get testing from the community that doesn't require people to buy it before it is released, reviewed, or feature complete.  And Microsoft doesn't need the money from Early Access.

Edited February 24, 2020 by GlideBy

[MatthewS 761]

12 hours ago, nickhod said:

The NDA (or rather recent NDA breach) has meant that the only video we've seen someone flying from airport A to B looked terrible. 720p, lowest graphics settings on a junk PC, by someone controlling the plane with a mouse or something.

I saw those 2 videos as well... It's a real shame that a joker like that can get Alpha access.... I'd happily pay $100 for early access.

[HiFlyer 9,358]

3 hours ago, nickhod said:

If your plan for formal, structured testing is recruiting randoms off the interwebs, you're crazy.

Doesn't this depend on exactly what they are testing and when?

For instance, the (apparent) tendency to choose people with 32gb's of ram possibly has some reasoning only Asobo/Microsoft know about currently.

Did my mentioning that I indeed do have VR (which was an actual question) affect their decision to let me in? Who knows?

There was speculation early on that one of the main things they were testing was their ability to stream data to large amounts of homes at acceptable speeds. Do you need to be a card-carrying button presser to help with that?

Nope.

Randoms off the interweb sounds like an excellent idea for a program designed for an audience that will indeed almost certainly include tons of..... randoms off the interweb.

Perhaps those randoms are more likely to do crazy things that might break the sim and cause ctds while their more "structured" simmer brethren are stringently following procedures and obeying every little rule. Perhaps rule followers have far less chance of discovering strange little bugs that occur only if you are crazy enough to try flying upside down under a bridge or something.....

What's actually crazy, if the game is to be successful, is testing only against a restricted subset of possible users!

Finally, who knows that Asobo/Microsoft are not also conducting more structured testing? Only the testers know, and and if they want to stay in the alpha, they ain't talking!! 

Edited February 24, 2020 by HiFlyer

[goates 576]

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

Perhaps those randoms are more likely to do crazy things that might break the sim and cause ctds while their more "structured" simmer brethren are stringently following procedures and obeying every little rule. Perhaps rule followers have far less chance of discovering strange little bugs that occur only if you are crazy enough to try flying upside down under a bridge or something.....

This is a big part of what makes QA testing software so hard. The developers and experienced users who helped develop it will be great at making sure it does what it was designed to do, plus maybe one or two obvious incorrect cases to try and break it. It's the less experienced that are quite likely to try something unintended and break things in ways the developer never thought of.

[Bear242 68]

Whats funny to me is that Microsoft has stated on their website, there is no guarantee you will get to participate in the alpha, while they are trying to get as many people involved as possible.

I remember 2 years ago all we wanted was a decent simulator with modern graphics 64bit software and no need of hours of tweaking and meddling, we just want to fly with decent scenery and decent weather without spending $$$$$ for all those fancy addons. Microsoft is now giving that to us and more and people are still unhappy about not being selected into alpha?

It's not like Microsoft said we will never release the final product to you specifically, I guess in that case you have the right to get mad lol.

In the end we will all get to play this magnificent simulator, we will all eventually get to talk about it and post screenshots of our amazing adventures. 

[n4gix 4,947]

On ‎2‎/‎24‎/‎2020 at 5:41 PM, HiFlyer said:

Finally, who knows that Asobo/Microsoft are not also conducting more structured testing?

That is precisely what I suspect they are doing.

[Scottoest 1,561]

The point of a real alpha is not to "reward" anyone.  It's not supposed to have commercial or marketing implications either.  It's for TESTING.

They want to test certain hardware configurations, and gather feedback.  So they take signups, and invite at random based on those parameters for testing.  That means I'm sure plenty of people get in who just want to play early and can't be arsed to give good feedback.  But it also means plenty who do take the time - more than enough to get the information they need.  By all accounts, the Insider forum is EXTREMELY active.

Too many people view these alpha invites as some sort of doggy treat that dedicated members of the flight sim community should be entitled to, but it doesn't work like that.  And it would take an inordinate amount of time to even try to administrate invitations like that - time better spent on virtually anything else.  Nor should they care about trying to distribute invites in the most "fair" way possible.

They should be focused on one thing, and that's inviting exactly the number of people and/or types of hardware configurations they need, to get what's necessary to make the sim the best it can be at launch.  And everyone else should either keep praying they get an invite (because of course we'd all love one), or wait patiently.

[nickhod 425]

1 hour ago, Scottoest said:

The point of a real alpha is not to "reward" anyone.  It's not supposed to have commercial or marketing implications either.  It's for TESTING.

Those are good points regarding the pre-release scheme MS has chosen. I get why it works, and I get why it makes sense for them.

My overall point is that I still prefer the pre-release scheme of pretty much every other game / app / device*. Work on the thing until you're confident enough to show the world your work (as early access), unencumbered by NDAs etc.
Clearly, everyone else on this forum doesn't, and that's fine. 😀

 

1 hour ago, Scottoest said:

By all accounts, the Insider forum is EXTREMELY active.

I can imagine. And this place is a ghost town now. Back to why I don't like this pre-release method.

* Other than the MSFS franchise are there any other major games that did pre-release by selecting a "chosen few" signups and putting them under an employment like NDA?

[Scottoest 1,561]

3 minutes ago, nickhod said:

Other than the MSFS franchise are there any other major games that did pre-release by selecting a "chosen few" signups and putting them under an employment like NDA?

Tons of games do closed alpha testing, and they pretty much always come with an NDA.  I've been in a few myself, and it's always the same terms - don't talk about what you're seeing, don't post videos or screenshots of what you're seeing, don't stream what you're seeing.

They've never had this kind of constant communication and feature videos from the dev team, which I suspect is part of why people are so desperate to get in - they are getting weekly looks at what they are missing out on, either via the Discovery videos, or the weekly screenshots.

And I totally understand that impulse, because I share it.  It's driving me bananas seeing this stuff and not getting to experience it myself yet, but it's just luck of the draw.  And I'm sure at some point testing will open up wide enough that pretty much anyone who wants in will get in.  It's just a matter of time.  And maybe going from alpha to beta.

[188AHC 2,138]

Steam has a slew of early release games. 

[Scottoest 1,561]

1 minute ago, 188AHC said:

Steam has a slew of early release games. 

Those are a little different, because they are basically public alphas where you buy the game to participate.  Like buying and moving into a house before they've finished building it.

[nickhod 425]

1 minute ago, Scottoest said:

Tons of games do closed alpha testing, and they pretty much always come with an NDA.

I'd say that AAA games don't, or at least it's never promoted in the way that MSFS invites have been.

Some smaller developers do, but usually for people with some stronger link to the developer. A DLC developer, forum moderator, long term tester or whatever.

The vast majority seem to do Steam early access type schemes now.

[nickhod 425]

4 minutes ago, 188AHC said:

Steam has a slew of early release games. 

Which anyone can pay to start using and testing. Exactly what I'd prefer MS to have done.

Wishful thinking, I know.

[188AHC 2,138]

2 minutes ago, Scottoest said:

Those are a little different, because they are basically public alphas where you buy the game to participate.  Like buying and moving into a house before they've finished building it.

I'm aware. This was in response to all the negativity having to do with the way MS is handling the alpha. 

[188AHC 2,138]

2 minutes ago, nickhod said:

Which anyone can pay to start using and testing. Exactly what I'd prefer MS to have done.

Wishful thinking, I know.

You are just raw because you haven't been accepted. Everything you've posted has been negative. If you think that MS isn't trolling these forums for future testers then I'm guessing you're wrong. Calm down and try to not be so negative and confrontational.