Potzato: I don't understand why "to like more" doesn't make any sense ?
If you like the alpha more than the finished game, the majority of people would consider that the alpha didn't hold its promise. And can you ask the devs to let you play on the alpha version when the game is finished ? That's unheard of.
Because it is shifting the goalpost. This is about people liking to play games in alpha/beta stages, which do not precluded liking it better or worse than the final product. Adding the "better" makes the whole discussion meaningless and creating a needless dichotomy... If you start shifting the goalpost like this, then everything you do can be polarized in the same way, and we end up with all of us ever doing only one single thing - the one we "like more". The point here is not what we "like more" but what "we like" - so I ask again "if someone likes to play alphas and betas and watch a game develop, should they not be allowed to do so?"
In the end, they may like the end product more than the alpha/beta product, however this is not to say that they did not enjoyed the earlier versions, or in fact that the appreciation of the final product may be increased just to know what it has gone through during its development. Why is it wrong for someone to enjoy this? or even absurd?
Potzato: I said "proper guarantees". You are kind of paraphrasing :)
Proposing to people to fund the game without telling them that the game will not see the light of day if there is not X people buying the alpha is dishonest. I don't believe it's common practice but
Nothing prevents devs from doing so.
Not as long as the game is sold as a alpha/beta. You buy a game as alpha/beta - you get a game in alpha/beta. If the developer stops production, you still got a game in alpha/beta. This is a risk which is inherent in this process, but it is not unethical to do this. If you do not want to take this risk, then just do not buy an alpha/beta. "Caveat emptor" is a principle which applies here also, as with everything you buy.
Potzato: I may have been harsh but let's consider the example :
Alice pays for alpha access on game X because it will be an rpg with good story as thee devs intend.
Bob, Charlie and Doyle come some time later pay for alpha access for game X because it looks very nice. They don't care about story, they want nice models and they provide feedback accordingly.
At the end of the alpha, if Alice didn't get what she wanted originally it's not her fault nor the devs, in my opinion Alice should be able to ask for a refund, but the thing is the "alpha access" system doesn't work like that.
Point is : devs shouldn't ask for money for alpha access (paying for mugs, not mugged for money !), and it shouldn't be opened to anyone. There should be a limited number of people possible, access through forum ....
Alice should make research into what she buys. The same applies to all games, not only alpha/betas. If Alice is not prepared to take this risk, she should not buy a game in alpha/beta stages and rather wait until it is complete. She bought a game in the alpha/beta stage when she did, and it looked attractive to her, and that is what she got.
Alpha/beta s are a risk, and if you do not like it, then don't buy into it. However, I think it is unfair to prohibit those who do like it to do so. I have bought many alpha/betas who have given me tremendous enjoyment, and I do not regret anyone of them. even thous that seem to be failing, I am glad I have the opportunity to try those concepts and games,no matter how buggy, and I do not regret paying the people who made them for it. But - I always look into it before buying, to make sure that it is something I would like playing. (as with all games I by)