When a niche game has bugs...

[DavidsPizza]

Watergate isn't the hottest two player game in the world. But it is a solid, tense experience with assymmetry, strategic and tactical decisions, and a whole lot of history behind it.

It also has a lot of bugs.

Let's derail the "Well, anyone can go in and fix it, the community is wonderful that way, etc." Not all of us are programmers with the skill level needed to fix issues.

So then you need a Venn diagram of "skilled programmer" and "wants to play Watergate on BGA without getting paid to fix things" intersecting. Not highly likely.

Probably the game will languish as is, and other niche games will languish as is, while hot games get pushed forward in development and fixes.

I don't think there is a real solution to this problem. But I bet games with bugs that have been listed for months still get included in the count when the marketing material goes out saying "Come to Board Game Arena! We have [x] games waiting for you!"

[ufm]

Sorry, but I think the project isn't active now... The last commit was months ago.
Maybe the original dev lost interest or does not have enough time to fix it? It happens quite a lot. This is not even beta.
You have to put up with it unless someone jumps in. That's how BGA development works (for most times).
Even some beta games go back to alpha if neglected (e.g. Xanadu).

FYI, alpha games are not included in the game count of BGA intro page.

[dschingis27]

It also has a lot of bugs.

Of course it has. It is an alpha game (a fact you not even mention in your post)! You phrase it as if this were something unexpected. You should expect bugs and errors in all alpha games on BGA.

[robinzig]

It's unfortunate, but given that BGA uses volunteer developers for most games other than "blockbusters", it's not clear what can be done about it. Developers have their own lives and may become too busy, lose interest, get ill, or any of a number of other things that may take them away from the project for a long time, or perhaps indefinitely.

And when that happens, unless BGA are being given incentives by the game publisher to get an implementation fixed and released - which I think happens for some games but very very few - the game is simply going to stay in its present state until another developer decides to take over the project and look at the bugs. Sadly that's not especially likely, as said developer would have to be familiar and enthusiastic enough about the game to want to fix the issues, and not mind going through code written by another developer to try to understand what it is doing, not only to fix the issue at hand but to be confident it's not going to introduce additional problems. Most volunteer developers - and I definitely include myself in this - would much rather pick up a "fresh" game that they know and want to implement, than fix bugs on almost-finished projects they've not been involved in. I know that factor, combined with unfamiliarity with the game, would stop me wanting to take a look at Watergate with a view to fixing bugs.

Perhaps BGA should offer better incentives for developers to do this - but when they're relying on volunteer contributions anyway, then it's hard to see what could be done. If anyone has any ideas I'm sure the BGA team would be happy to hear them!

Fwiw I wouldn't consider Watergate a "niche game" - I've heard enough people talk about it and who seem to rate it highly. (Confession: I've never played it, but I would be interested, particularly if I could try it on BGA!) There are many other games I see on BGA, both in Alpha and already released, that I consider far more "niche". But that doesn't mean it's not a problem.

[RobertBr]

It also has a lot of bugs.

Of course it has. It is an alpha game (a fact you not even mention in your post)! You phrase it as if this were something unexpected. You should expect bugs and errors in all alpha games on BGA.

Unfortunately there is a widespread expectation amongst a section of the playing community that alpha games are finished and they should be able to play them. Many alpha 'testers' make no effort to report bugs and treat it as a club for early access. Some even vote a game ready when it is obviously a long way from being suitable to go to beta. The 'solution' is to be stricter on the distinction between alpha, beta, and actually playable games.

[Een]

Unfortunately there is a widespread expectation amongst a section of the playing community that alpha games are finished and they should be able to play them. Many alpha 'testers' make no effort to report bugs and treat it as a club for early access. Some even vote a game ready when it is obviously a long way from being suitable to go to beta. The 'solution' is to be stricter on the distinction between alpha, beta, and actually playable games.

It's difficult to know how widespread that expectation is, but with any community, you naturally get different levels of understanding and engagement from everyone. There is a large part of the reviewers who understand perfectly what it's about and are helping a lot, we shouldn't forget about that (thank you reviewers!) And indeed there are some people considering alpha just as "early access" to the games. We repeat as often as possible that it's not the case, and that the only purpose of alpha is to help improve the games. There are also clear warnings when starting a game, and posts in the alpha forum and the reviewer group "about" section to explain the process. But there will always be people who forge ahead without taking the time to check the context. Still, practical suggestions on how to make the alpha process more clear are welcome, we are always listening.

[Tisaac]

Unfortunately there is a widespread expectation amongst a section of the playing community that alpha games are finished and they should be able to play them. Many alpha 'testers' make no effort to report bugs and treat it as a club for early access. Some even vote a game ready when it is obviously a long way from being suitable to go to beta. The 'solution' is to be stricter on the distinction between alpha, beta, and actually playable games.

It's difficult to know how widespread that expectation is, but with any community, you naturally get different levels of understanding and engagement from everyone. There is a large part of the reviewers who understand perfectly what it's about and are helping a lot, we shouldn't forget about that (thank you reviewers!) And indeed there are some people considering alpha just as "early access" to the games. We repeat as often as possible that it's not the case, and that the only purpose of alpha is to help improve the games. There are also clear warnings when starting a game, and posts in the alpha forum and the reviewer group "about" section to explain the process. But there will always be people who forge ahead without taking the time to check the context. Still, practical suggestions on how to make the alpha process more clear are welcome, we are always listening.

A massive warning "please dont post bugs in the rating form" at the end of a game could help a bit ?

[Een]

A massive warning "please dont post bugs in the rating form" at the end of a game could help a bit ?

There is one... But I suppose it's not "massive"...

[RobertBr]

Unfortunately there is a widespread expectation amongst a section of the playing community that alpha games are finished and they should be able to play them. Many alpha 'testers' make no effort to report bugs and treat it as a club for early access. Some even vote a game ready when it is obviously a long way from being suitable to go to beta. The 'solution' is to be stricter on the distinction between alpha, beta, and actually playable games.

It's difficult to know how widespread that expectation is, but with any community, you naturally get different levels of understanding and engagement from everyone. There is a large part of the reviewers who understand perfectly what it's about and are helping a lot, we shouldn't forget about that (thank you reviewers!) And indeed there are some people considering alpha just as "early access" to the games. We repeat as often as possible that it's not the case, and that the only purpose of alpha is to help improve the games. There are also clear warnings when starting a game, and posts in the alpha forum and the reviewer group "about" section to explain the process. But there will always be people who forge ahead without taking the time to check the context. Still, practical suggestions on how to make the alpha process more clear are welcome, we are always listening.

I'm not clear there is an answer but its noticeable the system does not work particularly well. A recent release Tichu managed to get approved despite glaring bugs. I'm currently assisting on Talon, which is an alpha. The system says there are nearly 400 players in that group but there are only 16 games running and less than half a dozen users actually reporting bugs.

[Romain672]

I'm not clear there is an answer but its noticeable the system does not work particularly well. A recent release Tichu managed to get approved despite glaring bugs. I'm currently assisting on Talon, which is an alpha. The system says there are nearly 400 players in that group but there are only 16 games running and less than half a dozen users actually reporting bugs.

You can't know what the game is about (without google) without start to review a game. If finally the game isn't at all what you like, you can either stop the review (and not be counted anymore), or just not care since that doesn't change much. But you will be counted by the people who review.
And if you wanna play it in real time, you have no choice except start reviewing, waiting for a moment where you will want to try the game AND there will be others players connected too.

Not everyone is on this case, but I would not be surprise if that represent 50% of review. Or more.
And that doesn't explain people who would vote positive for that game.

(I believe myself I personnally joined it because someone advice me that game, but I never took the time to read the rules.)