The ethical faux pas of Beta Tesing via End Users

Let's establish some basics. What is Beta Testing? It is a process through which a nearing-completion basic structure of a computer program is tested, examined and experimented with until it is deemed ready for General Release. (The point at which it is deemed stable, safe and functional enough to be considered a completed product in normal everyday use.) It is typically conducted by paid professionals whose job it is to "break the software." To ensure that in normal operation that the program will perform adequately as-expected, in a timely fashion, and accomplish its design-purpose with an acceptable (very low,) probability of error. They do this to ensure that the product is an acceptable one fit for use by the general public. Who are 'End Users?' Anybody who buys (or licenses) software at retail. (Off-the-shelf or E-Shelf.) Basically every home user of computer software ever. What's the deal? Gamers, like all consumers of retail software products have a reasonable expectation of a working product. Although warranties and guarantees for software have changed over the years it has remained a staple of Best Practices in the software industry (almost since there was one) to offer patches (or "fixes") to customers for malfunctioning programs. As well as information on their product (e.g. manuals, instruction.) To do less than this is to in effect recruit your customers to unwittingly become Beta Testers for your product - or hand them a lemon! While generally agreed to be a boon, these practices have fallen by the wayside in recent years. In part this is due to the introduction modern digital content delivery systems. Overall, cutting corners seems to be on the rise as a trend in retail software. It is ironic too given the increased flexibility this model provides to companies that they would not in turn provide greater value to their customers and pass along their savings somewhat in the form of relative increased service-levels. Instead it seems the advent of a direct linkage to their End User's machines and broadband has prompted some enterprises to turn inward, taking for granted the utility of the design. This is especially troubling given how shortchanged it leaves consumers at the end of it. In a conventional retail software environment (up until recently) distributors, vendors and outlets all had a stronger stake in the success of a delivered and purchased product. Their involvement offered consumers a degree of recourse and accountability sometimes now seen to lack in a number of (especially proprietary) software distribution networks [Epic Games Store, Origin, among others noted for lack of responsiveness.] The relationship is closed yet the feedback mechanisms to the corporate actors are some ways reduced in this scenario. Ergo it has resulted in an apparent lessening of concern for customer feedback, a worsening of product quality, and a weaker distribution outcome ultimately, even if it is not revealed in the near-term. Companies losing sight of the means for the ends often lose much more over time. Customers are not disposable resources. Purchasers are expected to produce currency and feedback. That's what customers are for. When companies push products unfit for their markets, it's a lose-lose. Especially when those markets are captive or restricted in their ability to offer that feedback and explore alternatives. The value lost is not simply on the purchaser's end, but to the ecosystem as a whole. To add to the introductory definition- there are two types of Beta tests as a rule: Closed Betas. Open Betas. The former are typically the final stage of in-house testing companies do, after internal staff and development are through with initial tests. Sometimes they extend out to live service environments (or for some adventurous home-users, to them, too, since they volunteer!) Meanwhile Open Betas are more common with not-for-profit and Open Source software; they invite the bold and experimental-minded to dive in early, before the program tested is truly ready for production or a public release intended for everyday users. In all of these cases, the most important mechanism of the software's development, the most crucial point of the Beta-testing process is the feedback of those using it! The absence of which defeats the purpose altogether! So you see it is a mistake to push out software unready for public use and enjoyment just because it is easy to do! It tempts fate in their long-term decision-making with respect to digital distribution as a model, the programs or Intellectual Property involved, and the companies producing it. It is unfair to users, and it is short-sighted for companies. This is a faux pas. This should not be. If you suspect your gaming company has pushed out software substantially unready for customer use, contact GBAMFS immediately. gbamfs@gmail.com Copyright GBAMFS 2020