Beta Testing
DOOManiac
Worst. Critic. Ever. Join Date: 2002-04-17 Member: 462Members, NS1 Playtester
Worst. Critic. Ever. Join Date: 2002-04-17 Member: 462Members, NS1 Playtester
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">interesting article on Wired</div>I saw <a href='http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,63631,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2' target='_blank'>this</a> interesting article on Wired today. It discusses the trend developers used today to slap the label "beta" on their products and use it as an excuse to not completely test the products. It also examines the other side of the fence where people are claming it can help find bugs and get user input in some cases in etc.
One area I think the article should have covered more was the trend to do this in gaming. It used to just be a problem with mods (can you name 3 mods that are *NOT* using a "Beta" tag in their release? I can't), but now game developers are releasing beta patches too.
Its just nuts. The original concept of beta testing has been lost on people and now they just use this magic greek word (letter, whatever) to save them from the responsibility of owning up to bugs...
[/end rant]
So what do you guys think?
One area I think the article should have covered more was the trend to do this in gaming. It used to just be a problem with mods (can you name 3 mods that are *NOT* using a "Beta" tag in their release? I can't), but now game developers are releasing beta patches too.
Its just nuts. The original concept of beta testing has been lost on people and now they just use this magic greek word (letter, whatever) to save them from the responsibility of owning up to bugs...
[/end rant]
So what do you guys think?
Comments
And 2 that this article (and D00M) has a very good point.
This is just a mask to hide behind if any problems arise. But I think it's safe. If a peice of software is beta, it's not expected to be perfect and can be patched and patched and people for the most part will not give it a second thought.
Just look at Steam. It gets out of beta, and was buggy and people hated it.
At least not until I'm on a surgery table, getting brain surgery done (cyber implants and such, pretend it's the future), and I see that the Doctor is using "Brain Surgery Assistant v0.8(Beta)"
That's exactly the problem. There's no accountability or responsibility for the developers to make solid, stable, functional products anymore.
And just as a clarification, I don't have a problem with products released as beta that actually are beta. I have a problem with products that would otherwise not be labelled beta being labelled beta simply as a crutch for if things break.
But factor in video card drivers updating, heck, any driver updating can break a game. Some guy in Japan using a one of akind setup with his sound card/mobo will crash a game.
But I do agree, if the game has glaring problems, that even Jimmy in 2nd grade could find, and the company says "oh, it was beta, we will fix it", that pisses me off.
1. Advertize thier product with little or no actual advertizement funding required (free game for a limited time, who wouldn't download it)
2. Get the public to do thier bugfinding work for them (less costs all around)
3. Get the game out as fast as possible, makeing release dates much less worrysome.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But I do agree, if the game has glaring problems, that even Jimmy in 2nd grade could find, and the company says "oh, it was beta, we will fix it", that pisses me off.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't think of a professional developer who has done that... I know several mod and opensourse/freeware developers are fond of that tactic, but in thier defence, they aren't making any money off thier software; they might as well never release it and just make sure it works on thier system the way they want it to, then they never have to worry about what little Jimmy can do to it. If a open sourse developer decides to beta the heck out of thier software, I support them in it.
As far as I am concerned, any time you get free software that doesn't damage your PC you can just be glad you have it and not be concerned that it spent a long time in Beta.
This is the main reason I hated Desert Combat (besides the fact it's just a ****, shallow game). You point out how the game seemed to be made for idiots banned from Counter-Strike and get flamed that 'It's just an alpha', even though it's been in alpha for a year and has changed so much from original alpha, it's no where near considered what the original product was. Furthermore, they started in Alpha, so they can release 100 versions that suck and say "it's only alpha", then do it again for beta.
As a consumer, it's YOUR responsibility to do the proper research before you purchase the game. The fact that society seems to have forgotten this is beyond me. Remember: just because it's not illegal to sell something doesn't mean you should buy it.
[/rant]
The fact they label games as beta or not really doesn't matter. Games seek the extremes of performance, functionality, and compatibility that you just don't see elsewhere. The fun factor, in particular, is very hard to get right, so nothing works better than a hands-on demo before you buy. If you can't get one directly, make use of your "friends" as necessary. Just don't buy the game without trying it, or you'll be sorry.