[Demo] Please let it actually be a beta...

[SirYawnalot]

"Turning into"? EA has been worse than Microsoft for years.

I don't agree that Epic should release an early demo, instead releasing it when the game is pretty much complete. However there is a need to have a fair gap between it and the game's release, because in the past I've noticed quite a few bugs fixed in this timeperiod and it's no fun firing up a game for the first time only to run into a bug that could easily have been fixed by allowing more bug-fixing time between demo and gold. Obviously bugs can be fixed by patches, but a lot of UT owners have either a very slow or nonexistent net connection and others are just incredibly stupid, so there's a really good case for making sure it's as polished a game as possible out-of-the-box.

That said, the gap does need to be as small as possible (hence releasing when the game's pretty much finished), because a demo-release tends to skyrocket a game's hype, so it's a good idea to strike while the iron's hot. Epic have been pretty good about this in the past though (except UT2003 if I remember rightly, which didn't have enough gap), so I'm not worried.

 

[JaFO]

Few patches as in just a few or few as in quite a few because 2k3 went through at least 4, and 2k4 is on its 5th. For a game that i never considered broken, at least in the gameplay and stability department, that is alot of patches. Something like that should never happen if it went through "extensive beta testing".

I don't have the exact list of items 'fixed' in each patch, but IIRC there were more 'new features' added (demo-recording, splash-effects for water, new vehicle-related fixes) compared to plain and simple bugs. Especially given that it is an mulitplayer-based game it's definitely above average, when compared to stuff like Tribes and Diablo.
There've been little to no fixes that have anything to do with balancing of weapons (the translocator-fix for BR is the only example I know and that was because they'd underestimated the lack of teamplay on servers).

I doubt anyone really understands the magnitude of the problem a public beta is for any company. They'd have to read to thousands of badly worded (not every gamer writes flawless english) e-mails that rarely contain detailed descriptions of the bugs. Then they'd have to sort them so they can avoid duplicates, which is a full-time job for at least one employee (and Epic isn't that big in the first place).

So considering the scale of the problem versus rewards there's plenty of reasons why (good) developers don't use public beta-tests.

 

[tool]

I would be happy with a tech demo of the unreal engine 3.0 personally.

 

[edhe]

I don't have the exact list of items 'fixed' in each patch, but IIRC there were more 'new features' added (demo-recording, splash-effects for water, new vehicle-related fixes) compared to plain and simple bugs.

So considering the scale of the problem versus rewards there's plenty of reasons why (good) developers don't use public beta-tests.

Well if you don't know what you're talking about then why keep talking? Do you actually play online ever or are you talking from your own wee world again? Try looking at the patch releases and seeing how much you've missed out on.

Any good developer would have beta tests from as soon as is feasably possible. Do you understand software development? Didn't think so.

No good developer would deliver a product without a respectable beta period and bugfix period, but game developers do not follow that path as much as more business critical stuff. IMHO having a strong beta aspect to the demo, unlike recently, would greatly help the release product, the less bugs and issues with it the more it'll pick up casual gamers.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Well if you don't know what you're talking about then why keep talking? Do you actually play online ever or are you talking from your own wee world again? Try looking at the patch releases and seeing how much you've missed out on.

If you'd like they can just wait 12 months until most of the bugs are found and fixed and give you one patch

Any good developer would have beta tests from as soon as is feasably possible. Do you understand software development? Didn't think so.

Not PUBLIC beta tests. There are alot of problems with allowing the public to see something that you know is not completed. It's even problematic for NO PROFESSIONAL developers, although I feel more necessary. The thing is, even if they DO have a proper "beta testing " period from the demo, 99% of the requests are going to be feature/gameplay CHANGES (which they aren't going to do) and 1% is going to be actual bug reports. It's not worth the return. They can get a professional testing fir or do in house testing and find more bugs than they can with a public test.

No

good developer would deliver a product without a respectable beta period and bugfix period, but game developers do not follow that path as much as more business critical stuff. IMHO having a strong beta aspect to the demo, unlike recently, would greatly help the release product, the less bugs and issues with it the more it'll pick up casual gamers.

I encourage you to go back and find the original UT demo and the original UT release and compare them. Precious little was changed between the releases.

 

[FireCrack]

The best ide's to make a demo but call it a beta, that way people that dont like it can say "it's just a beta"


Then again ,ther are also problems with that...



Personaly though, i dont care.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

The best ide's to make a demo but call it a beta, that way people that dont like it can say "it's just a beta"


Then again ,ther are also problems with that...



Personaly though, i dont care.

No, what they should do is release a demo, and accept feedback on it. Most of it will be worthless, but they might get a few ideas out of it. Calling it beta would be dumb.

 

[-AEnubis-]

Yeah, public beta's I wouldn't see as being a good thing. They need to get a list of people, either by application, or hand picked from forums, etc... Decent mappers / mod makers, server admins, and some straight players.

 

[JaFO]

...
Any good developer would have beta tests from as soon as is feasably possible. Do you understand software development? Didn't think so.

I'm in the business in real life ...
I've had to deal with crappy bug-reports and even worse specs. And they effectively only cost time and waste resources.
It is you who fails to understand the kind of time & resources needed to handle a public beta for a big release like UT2k7.

...
No good developer would deliver a product without a respectable beta period and bugfix period, but game developers do not follow that path as much as more business critical stuff.

that's why most games need patches, while business-related software can be pretty much patch-free ...

IMHO having a strong beta aspect to the demo, unlike recently, would greatly help the release product, the less bugs and issues with it the more it'll pick up casual gamers.

It won't work that way in reality.
Your so called 'casual gamers' will download the 'beta/demo', see the bugs and the more obvious weapon/map-balance problems, scream 'buggy demo' on whatever forums they can find, delete the thing and call it a day. Effectively killing what chance Epic might have had with their game.

You've got only one chance to make a first impression.
If Epic wants UT2k7 to succeed then they've absopositively make sure that the demo is perfect from beginning to end.

Heck .. why'd you think that Epic hasn't released a high-resolution movie fof all the UT2k7-demo's so far ?
Why did they try to limit access to the UE3-demos at the E3 as much as possible ?