I would expect you get the finished product yes. But as others have said; buying and playing so soon in its development, do you really expect to still be playing it when it actually releases?

Depends on the game i guess. Ones where u will only play through once?. Not a chance?.

I think it also depends on the time involved. Again with Minecraft, I don't know anyone who purchased it pre-release who still plays it. And thinking of the alpha bundle I got from Indie Royal, I don't play any of those any more either and one of those is due for release soon (of course that bundle was exceptionally cheap).

It's also possible for a game to drop in price between buying before beta and actual release. That happened with Kairo. It was $15 originally, by the time it released it was less than $10 - and that's certainly something you'll play only once. Maybe twice if you want to get the secret ending.

But with Folk Tale, by the sounds of things, the release could be years away. It will be "several months" before the sandbox element of the game gets released -- the very element which people are expecting to buy later today/tomorrow. How many of those will play through the short tutorial campaign and then come back a few months later for the actual content? I don't think everyone will.

I've been trying to understand this all day, but I simply cannot reach a reasonable explanation as to why releasing with just the tutorial for $20 is a good thing. The comment by one of the devs that you can extend play time by watching the villagers doesn't instil confidence either. You can extend the length of ANY game by just staring at the screen and not playing it!

I was actually looking forward to Folk Tale when I first saw it on the 'net. But I'm now thoroughly put off from it and can't see myself buying it until it's in a Steam sale several years down the road now, if ever. So if it seems I'm "picking on" that particular game, that's why.

But why so negative? If they finish it and if it is in good shape by then why not buying it like you always buy games?

They may never finish if they act so unwisely. But maybe they are professionals anyway and will finish the game and the additional money they get by selling some hot air, even if it is only a little, should not spoil the game.

So I think you should treat it as a normal game with some extra cautiousness because of the fishy actions and wait until it is finished and then decide to buy if it meets your general quality expectations.

Wrong decisions are made every day. It's normal. If we would pay attention to every single failure... it would blow our mind. We should concentrate on those who make it right.

If I want to play the game and it's cheap, I think about it like a early pre-order with a bonus.
If I really want to play the game I might be tempted to get it.
Any other case - I vote with my wallet and simply ignore such alpha funding deals.

Personally I don't quite get how it became that alpha/beta testing is a thing the customer pays for, instead of a paid job itself. Unless the early release is at a high discount, which apparently is not always the case. I especially don't understand using it for Kickstarter rewards, because again, to me it's a job not a privilege/perk.

Because a playtester (paid) is a long and boring task, not really playing at all, following strict rules and regulations. You have targets to hit, so to speak, your time is not your own. it is a job.

It is not the same with buying Alpha/Beta, you do as you like, you play how you like, as much as you like, You do not need to report to anyone (unless you want) you do not need to stress test the same area over and over and over, you do not need to do the same thing over and over to try to replicate bugs, you do no need.... and so on and so forth. If you had ever been a paid Playtester, this is something you would not even ask...

Playtester is a job, Alpha funding is a hobby.

it is the same as saying - why do people bother go fishing in their spare time, for me it is a job, or something similar.

Nice, so Folk Tale is becoming an Early Access game today then? May have to pick that up. I agree these things should come with some sort of pre-release discount or bonus though, preferably.

And Expeditions Conquistador coming to Steam today as well, looks like a good day so far :)

Three main reasons. 1 - They intend to keep increasing the price. So by the time it has the content in it that it's meant to have it could potentially be $40 or more. Which I'm afraid is far too much for a single game now for me.

2 - If I have to wait so long for a sale, chances are I'll have long since lost interest in the game. There are just so many games out there now that this is all too likely. It's even likely that another game in the same genre will come along and prove to be far better (and be a better price).

3 - Given the current exchange rate, I rarely pre-order finished, ready for release, games, until the very day they release. Doing it earlier is simply a poor use of my limited budget (which gets more and more limited on a daily basis -- thanks JPN government). So I really cannot justify buying a TUTORIAL for $20.

If you can afford $20 for a tutorial, great. But even then, think very carefully before you do. It's a tutorial for content that could be removed from the game at any time. And it's only 1 to 2 hours worth of game play. That's almost as bad as Activision's pricing model - $60 plus for 6 hours content.

Yes, you'll be able to buy it from today. But you only get a 1 to 2 hour tutorial. Which (as you can see from this topic) is all kinds of wrong to me.

Didn't Minecraft start like this? People were all over it like flies on...

It's a nice way to get some additional funding and input before all the parameters are set for the final build, but in the end it's up to you if you'd like to support something like that.

edit: while the price is high it is lower then the final game that you will receive.

In my dictionnary that means "we don't really know where we're going, pay us and we will make the game you want".
Which is worrisome because that means their project is not 'ironspeared' by a core designer's idea.

I may be wrong of course, but in my opinion it's not a trustworthy developpement approach.

Beats the Godus approach of having a random kid dictate changes in development simply because he was the one who removed the final block in an unrelated game :)

One kid OR a couple hundreds of random guys from the steam hive to make insightfull decisions ...
huuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, tilt! : I choose the kid because you reach "something" faster ;D

I might have conceded that point if the couple of hundreds of random guys hadn't kickstarted that game to begin with ;)