@logain said in Pre-Kickstarter Exclusives:
@kellewic said in Pre-Kickstarter Exclusives:
(...)Putting it at say "$250", you are much less likely to get those casual players that have no interest in testing. It's more likely that someone willing to pony up $250 to test alpha would have more interest in the longevity of the game and therefore more chance to provide good testing feedback.
I don't think there's a direct correlation between people able to test (being willing to do something doesn't ensure you're good at doing something) and the money people invest. That said, there is a benefit to 'having an entry barrier', namely when you want your testing to be under NDA (because people who invested are more willing to 'forgive' in the beginning of development and less likely to wager with their investment by breaking the NDA).
I think the developers are planning a smart move by polling their existing community, because based on these replies, they can get a rough estimate of a maximum profit (best price to amount ratio).
I agree there's no correlation between ability to spend and ability to test. I guess my qualification of "good testing feedback" simply should have been "testing feedback" since it may not necessarily be any good.
My main point was the lower the price point, the higher chances of getting people who have zero interest in testing at all. Of course there's always the chance, even at $1000, to get those who just want early access to the game with no intention of providing testing feedback.
Maybe during testing they will have a private forum where those included must post feedback at least weekly or dropped and make that known during the kickstarter.
Personally, I love testing, but that might be due to my proclivity to break stuff - one of my favorite jobs was penetration testing before I left the infosec world for the big data world.