Open alpha vs Closed alpha?
Posted: 14 Sep 2015, 19:15
I was wondering, which way is better? Open alpha or closed alpha?
Closed alpha:
I.e. there is a starting opensource game project. There even might be source on github or somewhere else, but no dev snapshots / releases. I.e. without proper compilation skill its closed to the public which only sometimes gets screenshots or videos.
Until the game looks well and is playable.
Versus
From the very beginning there are dozens of dev.snapshots each can download and run.
On one hand, open alpha gives some access to early feedback & interest in the game, stimulating the development. On the other hand as far as I see, practically there is almost none - the feedback mainly comes from people I've asked to play and tell me what they think. I get almost the same amount of feedback if the alpha would be closed.
Open alpha may disappoint users due to low quality graphics & glitchy gameplay and make them loose interest in the project before it reached anything. Most of the project downloads arise at the week the project info was published at some site.
And if someone is really interested in the project I can simply upload a snapshot for him in return for promise to give the feedback.
The main problem is lack of feedback. First, feedback is impetus of the free project development. You see it's interesting, you see someone likes it or not. Second, you see what you've might have missed in the gameplay or tutorial/help. And third its bug report, saves you from having to play hours to hunt bugs yourself and aids detecting different platform compatibility.
So, which one is better? Closed alpha and invited testers, or open alpha and hope for the future?
Closed alpha:
I.e. there is a starting opensource game project. There even might be source on github or somewhere else, but no dev snapshots / releases. I.e. without proper compilation skill its closed to the public which only sometimes gets screenshots or videos.
Until the game looks well and is playable.
Versus
From the very beginning there are dozens of dev.snapshots each can download and run.
On one hand, open alpha gives some access to early feedback & interest in the game, stimulating the development. On the other hand as far as I see, practically there is almost none - the feedback mainly comes from people I've asked to play and tell me what they think. I get almost the same amount of feedback if the alpha would be closed.
Open alpha may disappoint users due to low quality graphics & glitchy gameplay and make them loose interest in the project before it reached anything. Most of the project downloads arise at the week the project info was published at some site.
And if someone is really interested in the project I can simply upload a snapshot for him in return for promise to give the feedback.
The main problem is lack of feedback. First, feedback is impetus of the free project development. You see it's interesting, you see someone likes it or not. Second, you see what you've might have missed in the gameplay or tutorial/help. And third its bug report, saves you from having to play hours to hunt bugs yourself and aids detecting different platform compatibility.
So, which one is better? Closed alpha and invited testers, or open alpha and hope for the future?