123 replies to this topic

[cjmaurer]

Hi guys. I'm CJ. I handle marketing for Perfect Parallel.

 

As we get closer to launching version 1.0 of Perfect Golf, we're preparing some new things that will keep the community even more involved and connected.

 

None of those things are more important than opening up an Alpha/Beta version of our software suite that will include Perfect Golf, Course Forge and Terrain Importer for testing. We are considering a variety of models that we could pursue and are looking for your input on what you think will work best. First I thought it would make sense to outline some of our goals of the program.

 

We are keen for as many people to get to play with the applications as possible, but it's also important to us that we're able to work with everyone to resolve any issues they have with the software. So we need to limit the size of the testing group initially so everyone who participates has a good experience.

 

We are doing this so we can understand the experience on multiple platforms and get solid feedback on what works and what doesn't.

 

The products will be development products and should not be viewed as retail products (yet).

 

We believe the best way to build something the community wants is to have you guys provide feedback during the development process. Not after it's complete.

 

We want people in this program who actually want to test each application, not just play the game.

 

With that in mind, we're considering a few scenarios...

 

- A small, invitation-only Alpha

- A small, paid Alpha

- A larger, open Alpha

 

We also need to find a fair way to select the beta participants, especially if the slots are limited and first-come-first-serve (while technically fair) does not guarantee us the best participants.

 

We're not viewing this as an opportunity to raise money but we also know that people who pay to participate are more likely to contribute to the Alpha and Beta testing program. That's the only reason why we're considering that.

 

So please... Let us have your thoughts on what you believe would be the best way for us to run this and select participants. After all, community participation starts here!

 

Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback. We're looking to get this rolling as soon as possible!

 

CJ

[Davefevs]

I think you can use different groups to achieve different objectives. You might want small discreet groups to work on certain modules or aspects of the overall game, but you might also want to get as many people just playing and trying things out. You can run your defects reporting appropriately.

Personally I'd prefer to be given a particular part of the game and test it. I find it too tempting to play the game, although I would probably like to do that as well just to get some volume to the testing.

As for payment, depends on the amount, and might also be used as a discount on final game....so pay $10 to test, but receive that off the final game.

Looking like PP is making good progress.

[ChickenLittle99]

I would love to be a beta golfer, But i work during the day. Weekends are my best choice to help.

[Dazmaniac]

I guess the payment option would depend on just what the payment would be.

 

There are plenty of titles that are coming out on Steam these days as 'Early Access' offerings (I have bought a few myself), which are effectively games still in BETA, but folks can buy in at what is normally a discounted price and then play/BETA test the game, and report feedback in the appropriate forums. When the game finally reaches v1.0 full release, you have already paid for it. Assetto Corsa is an example of this, where you can currently buy in to the BETA builds (currently at v0.32) for a discount of 22% off the full release price. Plenty of folks have taken them up on this offer and plenty are providing feedback.

 

Now obviously the loophole here is some folks might just jump in and buy the game at the discounted price but not actually contribute anything as regards testing and just keep updating the new builds as they go until the game is final, so they have basically bought the game cheaper than it will be when the final release hits the stores.

 

The 'Early Access' also generates a revenue for the developer whilst the game is still being BETA's, but I guess the only 'risk' of these 'Early Access' games is that there is no guarantee a full release will ever see the light of day. It's a little bit like Kickstarter, but unlike Kickstarter which aims for a certain cash target to supposedly guarantee a full game will get released, Early Access doesn't appear to have this included.

 

Whilst on the subject of Steam, can PP offer any clues as to how close Perfect Golf is to being accepted on the Greenlight program? Last I read was that it had gone beyond 90% Greenlit so must be nearing a potential release on to the Steam platform. With a community of over 5 million, getting Perfect Golf on steam could open it up to a whole new audience.

 

Will be interesting to see other community members thoughts on this BETA testing topic.

[vfe]

The Early Access ala Steam is what me and CJ were discussing today actually.

[Mick-S]

I have played computer golf since the Leaderboard days and would like to offer my services for testing, I am retired and have all the time in the world, also created lots of courses for JNGBC and TW 08 so have a fairly good concept of designing courses, anyway fingers crossed.

[ed dawson]

I am firmly of the 'Links' persausion and have not been overly impressed with any of the 'console' type golf games I have played.  As a Links enthusiast I have dallied with APCD courses over the years, although I have not completed any to publication standard.   Having said this I realise that I have possibly shot myself in the foot as a beta (or alpha) tested as I am rooted on one side of the Links/ console divide. 

The bottom line is that I am as engrossed by vertex and edge as I am by swing meter and RTS. I enjoy course creation and playing the game equally and would love to be involved in this new venture,  Cost is something nebulous and yet to be quantified. 

Bring it on and if I can help ,great if not, then let those that can get their fingers out and roll on the release of the game.

[axe360]

I'd like to be in on testing the Game itself, no terrain importer or CF.. I would suggest a separate forum when this get's going, not a public one.

 

Also, have sections:

General Forum

Swing Mechanics

Ball physics

Textures

Etc.etc.

 

Maybe a small group of say 50 at the most? The challenge will be to keep those that just want to play, from the testing. As what happened in the TWO beta testing, many many players never helped at all.. This was very discouraging..

 

Thanks

[mbidney]

-Definitely should be separate forums.  

-Also there needs to be some sort of formal communication between developers and the alpha/beta group.  This is something that is the downfall of many test groups, people report a bunch of things that seem to just get dumped into a black hole.  Possibly  nominate  1 person for each section of development (CF, PG, Forum design, Multiplayer) to communicate directly with the developers.

-Need to get people into the group that have the time to test it  thoroughly.  Possibly a minimum number of logged minutes for whatever they are responsible for.

-Obviously geography of the group needs to be taken into consideration depending on how servers/multiplayer is designed.

 

As far as open/paid is concerned, not sure it matters much.  I would bet there are plenty of people willing to part with cash to become early adopters.  Probably enough that it may not make sense to go that direction as you would still be turning people away.  Turning people away who may very well be better testers but not willing to part with the cash.

[Armand]

Did the open alpha test for the physics engine provide what PP was looking for?  If so, then an open alpha would probably also suffice.  Personally, I think a closed/by-invitation-only test would be best; I'm not sure how the invitations would be determined other than vocal members on the forums or personal knowledge of members by the Admins. 

 

While I would love to participate, I don't have the time to properly test the PP offering(s) and I wouldn't fall into either of the proposed categories above!

 

Armand

[Jimbobh]

I personally would like to have the course forge. I have been working with Unity for some time, but not able to really do a lot with it, other than importing terrains and sculpting them, and adding standard terrain textures. Without the CF tools, there is not much more I can do.

[Joe Habiger]

I wouldn't mind testing the Course Forge, I have over 30 courses alone in 1 meter Lidar Data from my home state. Paid or not I have done this quite a few times already so it usually doesn't bother me, if it's not to bad I don't mind helping development.

[IanD]

Always a challenge, and we're not on the tee yet...

 

Seems a good few here are prepared to pay.. and I'd be one happy to see that option. I'm as easy as they come though.

 

I guess what you also would like to see, is whether something designed by some of us, can be shared with the rest of us, within that group. So, there has to be the willingness to take criticism amongst those testing too. PP would like to see how we fair in the CF, and enjoy seeing how we all interact with the projects that are created.

 

Forum signup works for me, those here first who took the time to register, and also those who have contributed more too. However that doesn't mean their machine spec aids in what you seek, so I guess you need the option to invite and refuse..?

 

Either way, making the CF/TerrainImp as the freebie here, and ensure the Game has a paid attachment should cover the timewasters you cannot avoid occuring. Just ensure it states clearly they are not paying for the product, as it can tend to see some expecting more and demanding refunds on a product that may not even work on some machines.

[Unique]

As a links designer and player as well as unemployed I am free and willing to test both, although it is designing that I am looking forward too.

 

Peter Gemmill

[TimBoch]

I would help test/design in Course Forge in any way I can, including in game play testing in Perfect Golf.

[bluetoon]

I would be  happy to pay for access to the alpha/beta and contribute to its development, makes sense to me. It

would be drop in the ocean compared to the amount I spend on my 'real' golfing activities.

I see it as a win win for perfect, those that pay are more likely to be engaged in the process and perfect get a cash boost for the project.

Personally, I have the computer skills, time and desire to commit to the testing phase and more than willing to sign up.

Selection is a tough one, I would hate to miss out if it became limited. Think the main objective is to select those most willing to engage in the process.

[KenR]

I'm retired and open to helping test both CF and game play. Have been following progress of PP Golf since the beginning and was a Kickstarter participant.

Have a course designed/routed on paper that I've been eagerly waiting to develop with CF. I did a few personal courses back with the JN designer; never had time to dive into the intricate workings of the APCD. Would love to try out and help participate on CF, as I want to see if I can bring the course in my head to life with the promised "easier to use" CF. I'm also a Links user and have been since the series began, so I'm also eager to participate with the game play aspects as well.

I'm willing to pay a reasonable amount for access should you decide to go that route, though I'm not sure that is necessary to ensure a nice team of testers with the motivated group of participants who frequent the forums on a regular basis, even if they don't post a lot. I know I want this game to succeed, and to help contribute to that effort as part of an Alpha/Beta test.

[Tresclub]

I am retired, and have the time to devote to the testing.  I was a beta tester for the original Links game back in the early '90s.  I have no interest in the course design phase, but only in the actual game playing.

Warren

[Bob1527]

I am also retired(early due to illness),so have a bit of time on my hands....unfortunately I know nothing regarding the design of online courses and the mechanics of pc golf,except for playing various golf games and I have done that since the 80's.I wish I was able to get more involved early on but feel I would only be of use testing various designs/ideas regarding the actual playing side of things...

[Kablammo11]

KEEP IT SMALL!

…because based on what I've seen and read, that's the most conducive way to ensure speedy progress.

 

I see the issue: This might quickly explode into a free-for-all battle royal of massive and unbalanced input. You will need to organize the flow of communication for you, the makers, to get the best possible feedback and for us, the players/users, to dedicate our time and efforts to the most pressing issues. Also, let's keep in mind that PP are quite small in numbers. Gathering, harnessing and distilling the onslaught of feedbacks is quite time-consuming - and a big overflow of data and input could turn out to be more paralyzing than energizing.

And for these reasons I think a smaller group of dedicated testers should perform better than a large crowd - so I'd pick either options 1 or 2 of the OP: A small alpha, by invitation or paid for. 

Small is beautiful and I recommend this even though there is no guarantee that I will be one of the chosen few (most likely not, actually, with my Mac-handicap…) I would understand if this process would involve money and I would be willing to pay.

 

 

I would be very interested in testing the CourseForge. Since I have half a dozen projects waitng for the Forge, I could get into it rather quickly and would probably be testing it by using it. I also would love to test the game, as I will have to use it to test the designs of the CourseForge that I'm testing. 

And since I am severely Mac-handicapped, may I offer my services for "anything Mac" that might eventually materialize?

I do work for a living and have at most a couple hours per day atm - however, should something arrive soon enough, I'm wide open and care-free for xmas&new year holidays.

 

I would most prefer to see the makers handing out chores to their testers, like a teach assigns homework to his class: "For the next two days, please focus on the swing meter and tell us if the speed is okay, too quick, too slow and if the snap is too wide or too small, etc…). This strikes me as the most productive way to make progress.