Will you have a beta testing version?

[Zips]

the thing with bad company 2 is not good. if u pre-order (!) the game u get a beta key. wow. no serious tests and results from over 90 % i guess. this is just a rip off from EA. ppl see one map and say: cool, the rest of it must be that way, i ll buy it.

in my opinion a real beta test should be made. one thing is clear: RO OST has many bugs which could have been avoided with a good and large beta test.

the thing that clans should do this, because they have the most experience (i know the maps by heart and many other clan players too, of course) could really help to avoid bugs, little mistakes etc.

Huh?

Ok ok... Let's say your idea of only 10% of people reporting bugs is correct. Keep in mind that EA/DICE has also given out keys to a number of sites to distribute to those who have not preordered.

For example, I had 500 keys that I gave out for Bad Company 2. MyIS gave out 10,000 keys. 10,500 (and then some extra) just from one site/group. 10% of that is 1050. Meaning that just from our site there are now 1,050 people actively reporting bugs.

Obviously, the numbers will vary, and there are a ton of variables, etc. But having a pre-order BETA + possible beta key giveaway yields incredible results in terms of feedback.

So where you get the idea that it's a "rip off" is beyond me. Having a public beta for the full game is absurd and will only lead to this being more easily distributed by piracy groups. Gameplay bugs are one thing that can and should be dealt with by pre-release beta tests. Map bugs and exploits can be dealt with internally or dealt with after release. Those are certainly the lesser of two evils.

 

[Reise]

I miss the days when devs used to put out proper demos.

Not these "betas" where everyone and his brother can get in and see the game, and disregard any issues because hey, it's a "beta."

If you're gonna do testing, do testing. If you're gonna release a demo release a demo. I'm sure you'd get far more worthwhile results that way.

 

[-[SiN]-bswearer]

see now something that i think would be pretty cool, and most effective for beta testing would be this: instead of everyone getting the same content to test, it gets split up so that for example, every stock map gets some testing. the biggest flaws i found in RO and in KF were the discrepencies in maps. some maps were nearly bugfree whereas others looked as though they were just given a quick run through. so if there are 10 stock maps, 1000 testers, that's 10 groups of 100 for each individual map. i don't know how "public" that type of demo should be, mostly because many people will say they want to "test" just so they can get a sneek peek at the game. testing should be done by those who know the game, know what they are looking for, and are able to communicate it to the devs so that the game is as polished and bugfree as possible upon release.

as for a demo, i've never really liked the idea of a demo. most people can get a general idea of what the game is going to be like from videos and screenshots alone to decide whether or not they will buy it. actually, adding a demo can add more negative effects in that if the demo sucks, people will think the whole game is going to suck and won't buy it.

i just don't like the concept of essentially paying money to become a tester. in reality, for BC2 "beta" how many people are actually reporting bugs and helping improve the game? it's not a beta test, it's a demo. like Reise said, either you're testing or you're giving a free preview of the game. it's one or the other.

 

[Reise]

as for a demo, i've never really liked the idea of a demo. most people can get a general idea of what the game is going to be like from videos and screenshots alone to decide whether or not they will buy it. actually, adding a demo can add more negative effects in that if the demo sucks, people will think the whole game is going to suck and won't buy it.

Heroes of Stalingrad? Sucking? Surely you jest.

 

[IVIARSHALL]

DEMO? DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMO!

Hidden and Dangerous II - Demo. Gaming at its best.

 

[-[SiN]-bswearer]

Heroes of Stalingrad? Sucking? Surely you jest.

i meant demos in general. no demo means no extra risk taken for bad publicity/reviews. good gameplay trailers should be enough to convince people to buy the game

 

[LJFHutch]

Why not do what Taleworlds are doing with Mount and Blade Warband.

They released Mount and Blade as beta and you could buy it right from the start, many many many people reported bugs up until release years later. Now with the semi-sequal Warband they are doing beta testing again, only this time you have to apply using your Mount and Blade key, that way they only get people in who (1) want to be in the beta and (2) actually owned the previous game and (3) knew there was a beta. There are about 100-300 testers now, of course, we play the game and enjoy it, but we're also reporting bugs and balance issues everyday.

So I suggest this: create a beta and only let in those people who own Red Orchestra OST.

 

[[TW]Ramm-Jaeger]

Yes there will be some form of beta.

 

[Agenda_Suicide]

Yes there will be some form of beta.

Hmm open or closed only? Or the people that have been registered on these forums since November 2005 .

 

[HodlPu]

I miss the days when devs used to put out proper demos.

Not these "betas" where everyone and his brother can get in and see the game, and disregard any issues because hey, it's a "beta."

If you're gonna do testing, do testing. If you're gonna release a demo release a demo. I'm sure you'd get far more worthwhile results that way.

What the heck is everyone's definition of a "demo"?

By my experience, I define a demo as the free, non-testing thing. Something for players to try out the game before buying it.

I define a beta as well, a group of people chosen by the devs to test, aka "closed-beta."

It seems that we have the same concept in our head, but call it conflicting names

 

[dasKaRmA]

I personally like demos. ( and dislike the fact that no one makes them anymore today; at least it seems so)
Every game I bought that did not release a Demo ( 2 games) where a piece of crap. So my first thought about a game (if theres no way to test it) is, that it is most likely not worth the 40-60 euros.
Its the same thing with buying CD

 

[Zetsumei]

Hmm open or closed only? Or the people that have been registered on these forums since November 2005 .

And thats the exact thing that probably wont be disclosed

 

[Apos]

Yes there will be some form of beta.

Good to hear it. I hope best of best clans from RO:O will get access to Beta.

 

[Matt Baker]

Good to hear it. I hope best of best clans from RO:O will get access to Beta.

i dont. let TWI have a closed, it's the best for the game.

and its good to hear, keep up the the work TWI.

 

[heady89]

see now something that i think would be pretty cool, and most effective for beta testing would be this: instead of everyone getting the same content to test, it gets split up so that for example, every stock map gets some testing. the biggest flaws i found in RO and in KF were the discrepencies in maps. some maps were nearly bugfree whereas others looked as though they were just given a quick run through. so if there are 10 stock maps, 1000 testers, that's 10 groups of 100 for each individual map. i don't know how "public" that type of demo should be, mostly because many people will say they want to "test" just so they can get a sneek peek at the game. testing should be done by those who know the game, know what they are looking for, and are able to communicate it to the devs so that the game is as polished and bugfree as possible upon release.

as for a demo, i've never really liked the idea of a demo. most people can get a general idea of what the game is going to be like from videos and screenshots alone to decide whether or not they will buy it. actually, adding a demo can add more negative effects in that if the demo sucks, people will think the whole game is going to suck and won't buy it.

i just don't like the concept of essentially paying money to become a tester. in reality, for BC2 "beta" how many people are actually reporting bugs and helping improve the game? it's not a beta test, it's a demo. like Reise said, either you're testing or you're giving a free preview of the game. it's one or the other.

It's a pure BETA on the PC, it's the first time that DICE is running the frostbite engine publicly for the PC audience. There has been an insane amount of activity on their twitter account(s), forums with feedback and they've responded frequently.

If anything then you should pay money to become a tester, it gives you more serious testers rather than the usually *lalallalaal*-testers that just use it as a demo. As for BC2 it's a closed beta with keys available both through pre-order and from organizations for free which is a good thing, a lot of problems have been ironed out.

 

[Apos]

i dont. let TWI have a closed, it's the best for the game.

and its good to hear, keep up the the work TWI.

Ofcourse it is TWI decision BUT there are good facts and pros from giving acces to best of best clans.

Clans really care about gameplay and game balance.
Clans have experienced game players who knows how to find glitches, bugs etc. Reported to TWI could be fixed fast.
Clans aren't casual players who play in each demo, beta, game only cos its free and after free perios is ended, they play other game.

Right now EA gave easy access to BC2 PC beta. Numbers of retards on the servers is countless. Gameplay almost doesnt exist. All only think about frags, ranks and ourself score.

 

[-[SiN]-bswearer]

If anything then you should pay money to become a tester, it gives you more serious testers rather than the usually *lalallalaal*-testers that just use it as a demo.

No, it doesn't. It gives you the exact opposite of what you're looking for in beta testers. People who beta test are experienced with the game/company and are dedicated to looking for bugs, balance issues, potential exploits etc....People that are willing to pay extra money are just looking for early access. Like Apos said, these kind of situations are just people wanting to play the game as if it was the final version. Beta tests are for small groups of dedicated players who have previous and extensive experience with the game and it's developers, not those willing to pay money to feel "special" that they can call themselves "beta testers".

Hi USAF, I'd like to help test out the newest experimental military aircraft .
- Do you have any knowledge or experience flying airplanes?
No, I don't, but I really want to and have money.
- Sorry, you're not really qualified.
But pretty please, I will even prepurchase before the planes are released!
- No, please stop bothering us.


There is a big difference between testing and previewing. Beta tests are for testing the game to find and fix issues before it is released to the public. Demos are for brief previews of the complete game that are supposed to help encourage people to purchase the complete game. What these big companies are doing by offering "early beta access" is suckering people into paying for an incomplete game so the company can make some immediate profits without having to realy release anything. Essentially they are getting money from people that are not contributing anything more important than what the official Company testers are already going to be contributing.


If there is going to be a demo for HOS that's cool, but it should be a real demo, meaning a small preview of the entire game that should only available once the whole game production is completed and the game is near release. If there's going to be any type of "public" beta testing, the testers should be chosen by the devs from amongst the already established and experienced community, not just those willing to pay for early access. Call it "elitism" if you want, but it's the most effective way for accomplishing the desired task.

 

[[TW]DrGuppy]

Clans are not the only people who will be buying this game though. If you just let clans into the Beta test then they will tell TW to tweak the game to be good for 6 vs 6 gameplay, or whatever the standard numbers of a clan match are. I would think TW wants a beta test to gather opinions of the game from all groups of players, not just clans.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

clans are not the only people who will be buying this game though. If you just let clans into the beta test then they will tell tw to tweak the game to be good for 6 vs 6 gameplay, or whatever the standard numbers of a clan match are. I would think tw wants a beta test to gather opinions of the game from all groups of players, not just clans.

^^^^

 

[Apos]

Clans are not the only people who will be buying this game though. If you just let clans into the Beta test then they will tell TW to tweak the game to be good for 6 vs 6 gameplay, or whatever the standard numbers of a clan match are. I would think TW wants a beta test to gather opinions of the game from all groups of players, not just clans.

AFAIK Red Orchestras games aren't call of duty or counter-strike game series and FYI RO clan gaming is based on 8 vs 8++ so you are wrong sir. Also clans organize campaings like Iron Crescendo or Fall Barbarossa, 16 vs 16 well organized struggles. Anyway its bad argument, it can't be changed for how many players maps will be done - only TWI know it.

Second group of ppl whos really cares of RO/RO:HoS are modders. Their experience can be important for new TWIs baby. Don't forget how awesome and wide developed is RO now with DH, MN and CC mods.

As -[SiN]-bswearer said, beta is test-based work, not like demo a preview. Many casual players can't understand it. Just check BC2 PC Beta forum. 1/2 of topics tell about low fps performance. Isn't it obvious? Its BETA, not DEMO.

I have experience with close beta of Quakewars and i know the true beta is in 75% of test and reports.