As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Open Question: How much is a beta allowed to suck?

2»

Posts

  • Options
    MonoxideMonoxide Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2008
    Accualt wrote: »
    SammyF wrote: »
    Accualt wrote: »
    Open Beta's are essentially limited time demos for a lot of potential customers. You really want to put your best foot forward.

    Monoxide wrote: »
    Beta builds [...] should never be considered to be indicative of the final product. Depending on the point of the beta, they might just be trying to stress test the hardware and could be using an old build for a variety of reasons.

    [...]People need to get out of this mindset, because you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.

    Not only do I love pitting moderators against one another, but I think there's potentially an interesting point here to be made. When people pan an open beta, is it the gamer's fault for "setting himself up for disappointment?" Or is it the developer's fault for not taking into account the fact that many gamers are naturally going to assume that the code they're seeing in open beta is going to to look like the code at release?

    I agree with everything Monoxide said if closed beta is attached to it. In an open beta I feel the major gameplay mechanics should be near 100%. The graphics, content, actual balance, and even FPS/performance doesn't need to be retail ready in an open beta. The thing developers need to keep in mind, though, is that most open beta players tend to treat the beta as a demo for the full product. Just look at al lthe people in the AoC thread wanting an open beta so they can try before they buy.

    If it's an open beta then the devs are just creating bad buzz if it's still mostly unfinished.

    But that doesn't take away from the fact that it is a beta and things change and people just don't understand that. If they wanted to release a demo, they'd call it a demo. I'm glad someone brought up the ET:QW beta, because they fixed nearly everything people complained about between beta 1 and beta 2, and people still discounted the game as buggy because they played or heard about the first beta.

    Is that the developers fault? No, not really. You could say that they should expect that when releasing a closed beta with a wide audience (like Fileplanet subscribers), but that's kind of bullshit. Activision signed exclusivity deals to release the beta to fileplanet members, not Splash Damage. Marketing departments might see betas as a tool to generate buzz, but they can only be used like that if they're ready.

    The public, as demonstrated by this thread, are obviously too stupid to understand the fact that a game beta is a natural (and necessary) part of the development cycle, and if a developer wants to use the available and willing community to test their game, instead of expanding their much smaller and more expensive QA department, they should be able to do so without their game being completely ruined by a bunch of morons looking to just try it before it comes out and then telling all of their internet forum friends how much the game sucks.

    Monoxide on
Sign In or Register to comment.