Quick Jump Daily Digest
Thank you for your interest in the Quick Jump Daily Digest. Get notified of all new content on QJ in our free Daily Digest. To subscribe, enter your email address below and click the subscribe button.
PoV: Public betas - right or privilege? |
Listed in: PS3, Xbox 360, PC Gaming Tags: opinion
See, while the beta, in a certain sense, is a demo of sorts, the main difference is that it allows the beta testers to not only catch bugs, but more importantly, to report them to the developers. Simply put, it's all about making sure that the game is as clean as it can get before it hits retail. Good ol' gaming fans are the best people to find these bugs - apart from the devs - firstly because they have that third party objective.
Nope, he doesn't look bugged at all.
After poring thousands of hours of work into a project, it isn't too hard to imagine how a developer would slip past a bug or something as crucial as that. It's work fatigue, simply put. Meanwhile, gamers who are just getting to see the product for the first time, carries with them "fresh eyes". Whatever that might have slipped past QC from the dev's workshop, they'll be sure to catch. At least for the most part.
Public betas, while not mandated by the industry, have so far been proven to be an effective method for quality control beyond the studios. Still, publishers have the option whether or not they want the public involved in their development. After all, opening betas to the public also carries risks, such as leaks. Massive ones, at that. If they're going to prioritize confidentiality to preserve credibility, then they will really have to tighten their lids on the game.
Still, when publishers say that they're not going to come out with a public beta, gamers still end up not only feeling disappointed, but feeling deprived of a right. As always, it's a consumer vs. publisher/ developer issue. In this case, do you think public betas should be incorporated by the publishers as a pre-requisite for their products before stamping a game with their Quality Seal of Approval, or do you think gamers are just pining for something that is clearly but a privilege to them, but not a right?
How effective do you think are public betas actually?
| 66.7% of voters think this story ROCKS! |
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments
Betas and demos should ALWAYS be free. You wouldn't go to McDonalds and buy a Big Mac thats half cooked and they expect you to go home and finish cooking it would you?
You shouldn't expect to buy a game and have it in beta form with a patch waiting for you on day one.
If the devs dont want to release demos or betas then expect it to be pirated. Thats one reason for piracy, to test it out before spending money on it. If its a crap game then of course your not going to buy it, if its great then you will. Demos stop those pirates.
Also if you release a demo try to keep it the same as the final, like have it 1 level.
If the demo and final game are different then why even bother with the demo? All your going to do is piss off people and the word will get around and people will just download a pirated version instead.
Reply
Demo's and Beta's Are completely diffrent animals, the demo should be a representation of the true final game, no spicing it up to make it look more impressive than it is, which many demos actually do, they let people play the 3 best points of the game hoping to gain sales, beta's on the otherhand are a "possible" end products where final aspects are tweaked i.e wepon powers health limits difficulties, the fact that many games are released buggy and have patches ready and waiting when you get home is that many of the developers have to submit their code for sony's/Microsofts aproval and to be manufactured this process can take months and in the mean time developers are still working on ironing out any last little bugs that didnt get fixed before submitting for aproval, point is regardless of when the publisher submits the game for aproval they still have an extra 2 months bug finding time before the game ships out to be at the store point is years ago on snes and such games couldnt be patched and bugs did make it into the final game, due to this the developer was forced to take longer on bug finding and fixing in order to make the game as stable as possible, where as now the developer can find a bug 2 years after release and still patch it to fix/close exploits and bugs, one final thing to consider is that on snes and such the games where alot smaller than todays modern games i.e content wise/data size so bugs can come in the form of one tiny misplaced file before release that without patches would require a recall of a game if it was a serious mistake, and no mater how much games will be tested inhouse how many developers employ a million people to just play the game, this is what they gain for free by opening public beta's but as you saids if they dont release a public beta its just the same concept, if a bug is found and they fix it that would technically make the game a beta but who cares really aslong as you get a game you enjoy just enjoy life and relax a litle
Reply
One other main reason for piracy is the fact that a lot of people just don't have the dispensable income, however people who pirate games tend to value them less that those who buy them, something centering around the "free vs paid" mentality that states that you get what you pay for, and if you don't pay for it it must not be worth as much.
Reply
Software is software. The only difference between Alpha, Beta and Gamma/Gold is when a developer deems it appropriate to call it as such.
If something is released "with bugs" that does NOT automatically mean it's beta software because everything has bugs. So by your logic, all software is beta until it's been proven to be perfect which is impossible.
Also, just because software is released with known bugs also doesn't make it beta software. Again, there will always be bugs so you have to cut the cord at some point. If all developers waited until they had no bug lists then everything would go the way of Duke Nukem.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Some pirates will still download it because
1. they can or
2. they can't afford $60 or whatever currency
In my opinion, betas are a privilege, however it hurts the company not to release one, because if they don't then on release, it will most likely be buggy, and people will probably return it. This will also get them bad reviews which causes a loss in future sales.
Reply
On the subject of demos, I wish every game had a demo. I hate when I buy into a game and it turns out I hate it and I'm out $60. As it stands, if there's no demo, I wait until I can read at least a couple of reviews so that I'll have at least a pretty good idea of what to expect. On the other hand, there are a few problems with demos--if your game really isn't that good but it has the benefit of some hype, the last thing you would want is for players to be able to find out that the game sucks and therefore not buy it. It's kinda of dirty, but it makes business sense. The other problem is that there are plenty of people who will be content to play the demo and never buy the game 'cuz they have enough fun with just the demo. So, from a business standpoint, if the demo can succeed in leaving the player wanting more, then it makes sense, but otherwise, I can understand that they'd want to avoid it.
Reply