Would you buy more books if they were beta tested first?

[Kzach]

If WotC released material through DDI via the various tools within it and tagged it as 'Beta' so that you could access it but it wouldn't be the default, and used the feedback and experience of it being 'live' in the community to fix any issues and incorporate errata before releasing it as a published physical product... would you be more inclined to buy said physical products?

 

[Ourph]

would you be more inclined to buy said physical products?

No. I haven't had a problem with any of the books I have purchased for 4e. In fact, I would say that 4e books are, overall, some of the most consistently well done RPG books I've ever purchased. It is very nice of WotC to release lots of errata for free in an attempt to improve the game for their customers, but the published books create a perfectly fine game as written.

 

[Incenjucar]

If the community feedback had a positive result on the material, it would increase the chances of my purchase. My purchases are wholly about whether or not the material is worth my time and money, so anything that improves the product's material is going to improve the chances of my purchase. However, I'm not sure that WotC trusts the community to pony up for the final material. I would settle for WotC expanding their playtesting - maybe grab a few cynics who will point out problem after problem to the point where the writers want to strangle them. <3

 

[OnlineDM]

Sure, I would be more favorably inclined toward a book that had been released and playtested in "beta" version; I'd feel that it would be less likely to have errata issued later.

Incenjucar has a good point that people might not be willing to buy the material if they already have the playtested material for free, but if the beta material were DDI-only I don't see that as a problem. First, you're already paying them something. Second, if having had the playtest version would stop you from buying the book, then you're probably not going to buy it either way since the material will be available in the DDI tools in the end.

I think having beta versions of material out in the DDI community for play testing makes a lot of sense. That said, I haven't been unhappy with the books that I've purchased in general.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would be happy with proof reading and making sure it is getting compiled often enough, that XXs are replaced by numbers...

(and maybe checking, if all monsters have the right powers and copy paste was applied correctly...) -> ropers in the monster vault are an example, where power checking failed horribly...

 

[Neverfate]

Seeing as how the Executioner was beta-tested and I returned Heroes of Shadow for a non-D&D product... I dunno. That may just be a bad example.

If we got stuff months in advance? Like the Monk. The Monk probably shouldn't have been the only publicly play tested class (though I recall a Battlemind build coming out early). The Runepriest and Seeker would never become the punchlines there are today if the community had at least gotten a say in.

 

[jimmifett]

So I can spend months before the final version of a product being released looking at forum threads about how wotc is off their rocker, is ruining the game, and how other versions did this and that better / more ffectively without any actual constructive criticism?

Oh wait, I suffer through that already

Betas are nice. Thats why you get a large enough testing audience that can give real feedback, have them sign NDAs, and then test.

I seem to recall PF's alpha/beta stages, the boards were filled with PF going to far, and then 'cowardly' going not far enough with later revisions, and in the end players bought it anyway and claim PF is the second coming of bacon wrapped [insert food here].

Not saying there is anything wrong with PF, I think it's ok, but the whole 'beta' thing has gotten out of hand in the last 5 or so years. I work in software, I don't want you seeing my beta, it's going to have huge holes and bugs in it that are going to make me look like a amateur off the street. I get professional testers, who not only find holes and bugs, but can properly document them if not suggest a possible fix. When i get close to a release candidate, i get a focus group of typical users to look for things i overlooked bc i was too close to the project to see it from the outside. Finally, after correcting anything that needed fixing, i release a polished product with as few bugs as possible. The user doesn't need to have seen all the work, trials, failures, and re-work that goes into a product. They get the end result and either buy it or not. I then listen to any feedback, and incorporate it into future things.

 

[Talok]

I'd settle for them acutally playtesting the material thoroughly before sending it to the printer. The errata in 4E is so staggeringly large and drastic, that's it's hard for me to believe that they do any playtesting. In other words, they should actually do some testing and quality control before releasing their products like all other companies do.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

If WotC released material through DDI via the various tools within it and tagged it as 'Beta' so that you could access it but it wouldn't be the default, and used the feedback and experience of it being 'live' in the community to fix any issues and incorporate errata before releasing it as a published physical product... would you be more inclined to buy said physical products?

Yes.

That's also a great way of catching confusing text, typos, etc.

 

[Dice4Hire]

No, the books for 4E are excellent. Most errata is simply fine tuning something that works fine right off the page.