Are beta testers blind?

 

Maybe it's a case of not having enough of them.

You will find that a "big release" is full of bugs.

Why aren't these ironed out while its still in production?

 

Discussion Info


Last updated July 4, 2018 Views 5 Applies to:

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

Most are. Once tested  the beta of Joint ops escalation on the pc , it was so jammed full of them it was nigh on impossible to sort them out.

The GOW3 "beta" wasnt really a beta ,it was a small gift they gave people as incentive to buy bulletstorm or increase pre-orders.

Currently theres a beta running for a new star wars mmo and thats being tested, although if you do you cant ever talk about what goes on!! they are running it very seriously to irradicate all possible bugs.

many games dont bother with proper betas....easier to push the game out and fix the major problems later on nd brush the rest under a big mat!!

I bet it's because most devs don't employ any in the first place.

Loot at TDU2 for example.

It can be very difficult to find every problem. I think that because betas are released usually under very strict controls and watch it is hard to detect large problems, such as security and coding weakness's. Gears of war 3 for example was under ver srong scrutiny behind the scenes and for anyone to breach and find large weakness's in the system would have been difficult, especially when they have full control of the server. However once a game becomes disc based many regular people can work around programming errors freely and expose system weakness's.

So in short, Beta's cannot detect all the problems because they are too controlled. Once released there are less strict controls that enable problems to be found much more easily.

While I agree with what ReaganSmash just said, some problems you see are just in-excusable in a 2010/11 game release...some games don't even get patched or patched so late in a games life no one cares because no one is playing it.

 

lol.

[quote user="The Angel Wings"]

While I agree with what ReaganSmash just said, some problems you see are just in-excusable in a 2010/11 game release...some games don't even get patched or patched so late in a games life no one cares because no one is playing it.

 

lol.

[/quote]

Very true. I will use call of duty again, alot of problems such as glitches and what not shouldn't be there if behind the scenes beta were carried out well enough.

We are in an era where we have the capabilities to detect and fix large glitches and problems early on, yet some companies take a long time. This must be due to poor staffing alot of the time. Fallout new vegas is a prime example, the game had a large problem with save glitches yet owners had to wait up to 2/3 months to get a sufficient patch which is in-excusable.

[quote user="ReaganSmash1994"]

[quote user="The Angel Wings"]

While I agree with what ReaganSmash just said, some problems you see are just in-excusable in a 2010/11 game release...some games don't even get patched or patched so late in a games life no one cares because no one is playing it.

 

lol.

[/quote]

Very true. I will use call of duty again, alot of problems such as glitches and what not shouldn't be there if behind the scenes beta were carried out well enough.

We are in an era where we have the capabilities to detect and fix large glitches and problems early on, yet some companies take a long time. This must be due to poor staffing alot of the time. Fallout new vegas is a prime example, the game had a large problem with save glitches yet owners had to wait up to 2/3 months to get a sufficient patch which is in-excusable.

[/quote]

 

i'd rather wait an extra couple of months for the release than play it shoddily till they pull their fingers out

[quote user="gooslaps goop"]

i'd rather wait an extra couple of months for the release than play it shoddily till they pull their fingers out

[/quote]
To a certain degree i agree, Fallout new vegas i would have happily waited for to have a solid release. Mainly because of the fact i could lose my progress easily. However i think that games that have a shoddy MP but a sufficient Sp should be released. Gaming shouldn't be all about MP, that can be fixed, aslong as the heart of the game is good, release it. But Fallout NV shouldn't have been released as the core of the game was broken.

 

a lot of time is also waisted waiting for MS to grant the patches a licence, its not like devs can just push patches without permission from them i believe.....

[quote user="Problematic dog"]

a lot of time is also waisted waiting for MS to grant the patches a licence, its not like devs can just push patches without permission from them i believe.....

[/quote]
Very true, MS do also need to pull there finger out.

 

Why do Microsoft need to pull their fingers out?

People who test all these patches need very specific skills. Microsoft cant have huge teams of people twiddling their thumbs 90% of the time, just so they can be ready on the rare occasion multiple game patches come along at the same time.

If developers did the job properly the first time, Microsoft wouldn't need these people at all. Is it Microsofts fault that there are periods where noone has patches, and periods where there are loads of patches waiting?

Im sure if developers have to wait for a patch to be approved, they should use that time to add more to said patch, because its very rare a patch is perfect!

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.