If you look at my posts, you will find that everytime I said or implied "if terminology changes it happens through the discipline." You gave us another fine example of
exactly what I am talking about.
The terms in these examples have changed in colloquial use a long time before the discipline acknowledged the change and reacted to it. If there had been no popular change in usage, there would have been no reason whatsoever to change the terminology within the discipline. It is not: Public change -> field change -> meaning change, but rather public change -> meaning change -> field change.
I am not confusing it, you are! And that has been my whole point
Gaming companies sell "beta testing" as a form of testing and everyone here is buying it. It is only a form of "acceptance testing" which is not formal, structured, etc; i.e. not development testing!
Hahahahhahaa.... (literally lolled though)
It works in adjusting consumer expectations. It works semantically.
Consumers will be calling out a product below their expectations completely regardless of how the early access, open alpha, open beta, however the frontend is named. It is based on the product and their expectations in whatever state it is. To gauge this, the user only roughly needs to consider the binary: finished or unfinished, not on whether the frontend is called early access, open alpha, open beta, or banana. There might be slight differences in acceptance within the terms, but beta is already under higher scrutiny of the public than pre-alpha or alpha.
This is the most efficient way for the end user to consider a product as well, because considering all the details that may have lead to the product being in whichever state it is are largely irrelevant for the user experience. Some users may take more into account, but in large industries the opportunity costs for doing so are immense, as opposed to just getting another product for the time being.
I also highly doubt you'd be seeing a whole lot of deviation from current cost-benefit analysis of a product if, for example, Taleworlds had slapped a massive "We're in acceptance testing, just checking how little we can deliver for it to not bite us in the ass legally" on their product. That's just a subjective feeling I have, based on the fact that it'd probably lower expectations even more. You only seem to have a problem nowadays when you say "it's finished" and something doesn't work.
No, it is the same as saying "there will always be snake oil salesmen" which is historically false
Customers get smarter and fraud schemes get old.
Whether customers are smart or not is in no way shape or form connected to their acceptance of the exact specifications of what engineers consider alpha or beta testing. A customer can be wholly unhappy with a product without it being apparently falsely advertised as a beta. A customer can be extremely happy with a product despite it being falsely advertised as a beta. The two things barely have any correlation, because the customer has a rudimentary semantic idea of what beta means, even if the product sold as a beta leads to mass heart attacks among engineers everywhere.
The term is widely accepted enough to mean whatever the industry puts forth, which is why using the term works for gaming companies and the public at large.
When all the people in the future have learned the exact ins and outs of engineering terminology their number one complaint with unsatisfying "beta testing" releases will, and I'm fairly certain of this, not be that it's advertised as an open beta, but whatever grievances they have with the content of the product. And the final layer of consumer judgement is then applied when, and if, it is supposedly finished, whether it's called "ultimate" edition or "definitive" edition or 1.0.
Swimming against the current but I already told you that is what I do by nature. Cant help that.
And I have said from the get-go that it's futile. You may continue to do so, but I doubt it'll spark much joy. For now beta testing is what it is, in gaming and the world at large. In the end, linguistically, words mean whatever the majority think they mean. Even terminology. Disambiguation is a thing.
The whole earlier discussion aside, you should really argue that there is no level of consumer interaction that should happen during production - period. And games should be considered complete experiences the second a user spends money on it. That's the only surefire way to avoid "fraud" in some fashion. This notion was far more widespread twelve years ago, when all of these online shenanigans started.
Although, since the whole of the gaming industry, you can even include boardgames in that, are making a consumer pay for whatever they're doing in the making of a game, and continueing development of titles under the public eye, this modus operandi is probably quite efficient. This seems to be the case both in terms of monetary value, and in terms of product quality. So maybe accepting a low percentage of what you'd consider fraud is good? At least it seems to work analogous to the banking industry, where loans are simply a very efficient tool for the market. But that assessment is quite subjective as well.