If I had the extra budget, a lifetime license would be mine.

Teknojnky wrote:Pay for gold features, get to use beta gold features.

Don't pay for gold features, then use the free version features.

I don't see what the problem is other than folks wanting something for nothing in the interest of 'beta testing'.

Well said!! Don't have a gold yet, but will pretty soon.

Teknojnky wrote:I'm sorry, I didn't realize that stating my opinion was insulting.

However I think it is safe to say, that we do it because we want to see MM improve and be the best it can be.

I was not angry when writing that post. Such is the case of the faceless Internet. Maybe "insulting", was the wrong word to use, but I would love to see MM be the best media player, as well.

I see the HUGE potential in it. MM made me switch from my 15+ years marriage with WMP for my music collection. A big company player.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that stating my opinion was insulting.

That said, beta testing is optional. However I think it is safe to say, that we do it because we want to see MM improve and be the best it can be.

I don't know if the dev's are interested in giving out 'free' gold licences to active beta testers (who do provide debug logs, pictures, detailed reproduction steps, etc), it 'would be nice', but is hardly a requirement.

As far as beta testing, it is both a priviledge to the user and also a favor to the developers. Users get to see and use the application during the development, and developers get access to a wide variety of feedback and bug reports.

The other side is that they could have simply done a closed alpha/beta (or none) and then most would not have access for testing/feedback.

I would guess that since MM is a relatively small shop, they are not as interested in giving out free gold, as say microsoft or other large companies that give out free full versions to testers.

Basically, In my opinion, it comes down to how much you want to support mediamonkey development. If you want to support by beta testing the free features, then by all means. If you want to support by purchasing (lifetime) gold (I know that version 3 only gold license is not currently available) without beta testing thats fine too. If you want to support it by getting gold AND beta testing, then thats even better.

In any case, I think the only thing that could have been done better regarding 3.0 licensing is making the 3.0 only/upgrade gold more readily available for purchase once the alpha was released, as it is currently only lifetime gold users get the full gold features.

GargantulaKon wrote:

Teknojnky wrote:I don't see what the problem is other than folks wanting something for nothing in the interest of 'beta testing'.

Considering the amounts of posts I have made with bugs, that is insulting. I have recorded videos, posted images, uploaded the files and wrote about them.

I agree with you. Teknojnky obviously has a rather jaded view of beta testers, maybe based on the effort he/she personally puts in. I see several folks here who have probably earned a free gold license several times over.

I guess that could be another approach - Jiri and team could AWARD gold licenses to any alpha/beta testers who appear to be putting a lot of effort into testing the 'vanilla' version.

Turning in debug logs, videos, photos, and sending databases to demo problems is WORK, no less so than fixing the code (and I say that as someone who has done both, over the last 30+ years). Of course there are probably lots of drive-by 'beta testers' who do naff-all, and who would not recognise a bug if their screen turned blue and all the magic smoke came out - they are not much in evidence on the forum.

Teknojnky wrote:So you feel there is insufficient gold users to properly test gold features?

While I see your point (if that is it), I simply don't agree.

Yes that is my point. The 'Gold only' features like VCD and on the fly conversion to DAPs are complicated, and based on the limited amount of beta testing I have been able/willing to do are seriously buggy compared to the 'vanilla' features. Not surprising - you can't even buy a MM3 'gold' license as far as I know, only a 'lifetime' one.

If there are =enough= 'Gold' users participating in the beta test (I don't know - presumably the MM folks know how many/few folks have coughed up for lifetime gold license 'on spec') then they are doing a pretty poor testing job, since I can sit down and spit out a dozen bugs in a few hours. Some of them show stoppers (like my VCD album art NOT converting properly from MM2.5 to MM3).

I'm not upset at the developers, I am/was one, software has bugs. The trick is to get them out before you sell it to the world and his auntie. I guess it depends on whether you think the devs are doing beta testers a favour, or vice versa (and I started the comments back at alpha-N , when is was pretty clear who was doing who a favour!).

Teknojnky wrote:I don't see what the problem is other than folks wanting something for nothing in the interest of 'beta testing'.

Considering the amounts of posts I have made with bugs, that is insulting. I have recorded videos, posted images, uploaded the files and wrote about them.

So you feel there is insufficient gold users to properly test gold features?

While I see your point (if that is it), I simply don't agree.

If MM already had a built-in 'trial' period to test gold features, then this would probly suffice. However it does not, for whatever reasons.

Would it be a nice addition? Sure at some point, although personally it would be relatively low on my personal priority list, albeit I am already a lifetime gold user so it would not affect me at this point, and it is probably safe to say that it would not have affected my purchase choice if it were have been available when I started using MM.

Anyway, enough of my thoughts.

The problem is that the 'gold' features are not going to get beta tested properly. As a paying gold customer I would MUCH rather that lots of (willing) people tested the features before they get released upon me. Even if the gold license costs me $1 extra as a result.

If you agree with the concept of beta test, why do you think it doesn't apply to gold features? When I beta test a game I get to play the whole $25 game (forever, if i want) in return for finding the errors in it.

I DO NOT WANT TO BUY A GOLD VERSION WHICH IS IMPROPERLY TESTED.
Nor do I want to do all the damn testing myself. Why is that so hard to understand?

it is not hard to arrange that gold features go away again (unless paid for) in the final version, or after date 31/Dec/2007 or whatever, if you are worried about beta testers having free GOLD features forever. (Personally i think they probably earned it).

Pay for gold features, get to use beta gold features.

Don't pay for gold features, then use the free version features.

I don't see what the problem is other than folks wanting something for nothing in the interest of 'beta testing'.

Well me comming from not having a license at all, I would say from what I have seen of mediamonkey its worth the investment of a lifetime license. So I hope my 35$ helps you guys out to finish off the code and put out a 3.0 final, and a 4.0 final! =)

I raised this way back at some early alpha release and was told I'd need a new gold key to try the gold features in MM3. I think it is a dumb decision, since it means that the paying users are the ones who are going to get the untested buggy stuff.

I already found a bunch of errors in Virtual CD handling, and 'on the fly' conversion to portable player, which will only show up in Gold version (Yes, i bought a lifetime gold key, but I still think the gold features should be testable by all and sundry until we get to <date X> or <version Y> or something.

I wonder the same thing. I would like to test the Gold features since I am loving MediaMonkey a lot, even in the Beta stage.

I can see where your coming from (although i do not have a say in the matter). Its unfortunate that 2.xx Gold users cannot try out the Gold features although the Lifetime Gold users can.

I see what you mean about Beta testing out all the features, and it probably would be a good idea. I wonder what the devs have to say about it.

Okay so I am not sure I understand the point as a current Gold customer about needing to purchase a Beta version key before you can even try the Gold Features? Isn't the point behind a 'beta' version is to test all the features, help the dev process and to see if they work and you like them? This seems especially strange the even current 'Gold' users cannot test the 'Gold' Beta features. I write for a software company and we enable all features in the betas, but protect ourselves by time locking the application. You could even go so far as to have a 'closed' 'Gold Beta' for current Gold customers.

I am seeing some errors and quirkiness in the DB handling and I can only check some stuff with what are 'Gold' features. I am certainly not going to pay upfront for untested features in an unfinished product. What happens if you never finish it? I have then paid for a half cooked meal and I doubt you will return my money.

If you are just trying to protect your gold fee base by restricting it in the beta, there has to be a better way.

Overall the new version has some really nice stuff, that I am sure I will want to purchase the new version. But if you really want our help then be realistic.