Regarding Release & Beta, What You Should Know.

Yeh I agree with you and anyway with what you said about no Internet and they probably wouldn't know about it so it should be steam release.

 

I imagine that a closed beta would produce the best and most positively received final product, but god would I love to get my hands on an early beta. The anticipation is half the fun, I suppose.

 

Yeh getting your hands on it early would be awsome. I'd be to my freinds you will never get this until official release,you will never get this until official release. ( It's a thing we do)

 

A beta isn't for bragging with "/ it's for testing.

 

of course a beta is for testing, but admit it, almost all of you will be like "umg look wat i got its da starbound beta omg!!!!!!!!!!"
Ok maybe not like that, but atleast you would feel a bit more awesome with it.

 

Even if you did get on you'd probably have to sign an NDA so wouldn't be allowed to tell anyone anyway lol

 

I said that because when me or my friend get things were like you will never get this you will never get this and I wouldnt brag on the forums im not like that.

 

Closed Beta's are truly not the best way to go for games like this. I remember minecraft during the old days of alpha into beta to the game it is now. They had a great way to do it as well as it was a great way to fund the game. Open beta's allow people of all skill and knowledge to try the game out and open betas really get word out about a game so you get more people to want it. But it is up to their discression although i would love to see an open beta if there is one due to the fact that if there is i know i can get about 25 more of my friends to play it with me .

 

Minecraft is more of an anomaly than anything else. The reason it captivated people was that it was an open-world sandbox with complete freedom in construction, with an equally expansive mod community. I doubt its success would be hindered any more or less if they chose to keep minecraft's earlier builds confined to closed beta. Still, they did get quite a bit of publicity through a lot of different media outlets and exposure, so I'm not saying that the alpha-purchase system hurt it. I'm just saying that selling alpha/beta access doesn't instantly guarantee success. Just look at towns in its current alpha state and compare it to minecraft when it was in alpha.

Off topic, I admit, so I'll waddle back on topic.

Steam's content control seems a bit finicky, so I'm dubious as to whether the game will launch on steam right away, or will have to be available on competitors like desura initially. I recall Origin's doing some sort of outreach to kickstarter-funded games, so I wouldn't be surprised if this showed up there too. With that said, though, I would definitely like to see this game pop up on steam.

In regards to beta, if they do a closed beta test, the rest of the community probably wouldn't know about it, because NDA's and such. I'm just speculating at this point, but the people they pick would also probably need to show more interest in fixing the game than playing the gaming, looking for new ways to break stuff. I can't imagine they'd pick people over the internet if they needed to test specific conditions.

If there is an open beta test, then yay.

Regardless, I'll definitely be keeping an eye on this game.

 

I agree. People who just want in beta to play the game early probably wouldn't really be that good for testing, but if it was over the internet - what would be a good way for the devs to tell if a person shows more interest in actually testing the game?

 

I guess that a good compromise would be a beta open to all those who preorder the game (provided such thing is possible on Steam). Then devs would have their money in the pocket, and we would have a game on our hard drives - to me it sounds lika a win-win situation .

 

So what you're saying is they should sell the game early before it's ready and call it a "pre-order" and an "open beta"?
Don't care if beta is open/closed or if they release videos or screenshots or if they have preorders(herp it's a digital download, don't need to preorder a copy to ensure I get one), I already know I want the game. Just waiting for a release date :v

 

In regaurds to a beta, what is the way you find out if anything is broken. You play it. With an open beta you get tons of people playing the game and you happen to find glitches. The more people play, the better your test will be because more people can find problems and or glitches in a game that way.

 

In regards to testing, what is the best way to properly determine the source of a problem? You analyze it, not count how many people have the problem. An open beta over the internet is not always preferable to a closed beta inside a controlled local environment, and the input of random people who want to play the game for the sake of playing is likely less insightful than dedicated beta testers; Quantity does not always equate to quality.

Can you guarantee that everyone participating in the beta will provide constructive feedback? If not, can you guarantee a system where the input of people who provide constructive feedback will stand out above baseless criticism or user-end mistakes? How many bug reports will contain a detailed list of everything that went wrong, and how many will be mis-attributed due to a slight error in memory or perception?

Are you arguing for open beta with the thought of wanting to pick apart at the game looking for flaws? Or are you arguing for it so you can play and enjoy the game despite any flaws?

 

Thanks for the info! It really helped!

 

Im arguing for an open beta to help the game progress further. I enjoy playing games and finding the flaws and pointing them out so that way the game can be fixed and balanced. Games that arent in betas still have flaws but they have forums where people can post about the flaws and the creators can see so that way the game can be fixed. Example, Left 4 dead 2, there was a flaw in one of the safe rooms, where if a person stood ontop of a water cooler, the game would never end no matter how many times you clsed the door or how long you sat there. Flaws like that ruin games for people.

But when people life myself and other people that love the game find those kind of flaws, we report them in a detailed manner in order for them to be fixed so that the game can be enjoyed by all and not be ruined by people who try to. Sure Quality always top quantity, but if the quality is in small numbers vs the quantity that will have more quality in it because people get left out, i feel that quality alone fails.

You can have 10 extremely well knowledged testers play a game and only find so many flaws. Then the game is released to the public and while the flaws that were found are fixed, other flaws arise worse than the ones that were found. Where as if you have more people say 20 including the 10 well knowledged ones and out of the 10 others they find flaws that the well knowledged people didnt, your still making more progress in bettering the game for everyone.

Im not saying a closed beta is bad, by all means its not, but open beta has the advantage of getting people who you may of thought wouldnt be of help, surprising you and being more help than the people that were already picked. Besides the forums are here for a reason, even when the game is released, there is no garuntee it will be glitch free. But there can be less glitches when it is launched if more people test it out and report on the bugs. No matter how small a bug is, it could ruin the game for some, so is it not better to find as many as you can or rather only focus on major ones and ignore the small ones that when they add up ruin a game.

This is just my thought and expierence being a beta tester for multiple games. I have beta tested wow since it came out, i beta tested diablo 3, i bought towns alpha and project zomboid alpha and make reports regularly one glitches i find. Any game i play i try to make it better for others as well as myself because i like to.

 

It's good to hear that your priority lies in beta testing the game, but it's impossible to guarantee that sort of commitment from every player. How many will just accept the bug as an anomaly, try to keep it in the back of their mind, only to forget about it when they discover an engaging part of the game? I understand that I shouldn't discount the portion of open beta testers who prioritize analysis, but it's equally important not to discount the portion who play it just to play the game. For instance, in the Guild Wars 2 Open beta, how many people bothered reporting bugs or opinions on each and every quest they came across? How many more decided to just ignore it?

I'm not saying that games which have gone gold have no bugs, because that is both inaccurate and unreasonable. Even in games that have extended beta tests, bugs still arise and need to be fixed. I mean, look at minecraft; was it bug-free when it was "officially" released? Even diablo 3 didn't have a perfect launch, despite its beta tests. And I'm not talking about server strain alone, as users still complain about software-based instability and optimization issues.

I don't disagree that it's good to be pleasantly surprised by the results of an open beta test, but you shouldn't ignore the disadvantages of hosting such a thing either. Granted, I suppose the initial influx of beta testers won't be as absurdly high as large, well known titles, but it's easy to garner interest in a game, especially one like this, and a growing population of beta testers doesn't guarantee a more thorough analysis.

I suppose my main issue is that I can't imagine how Chucklefish will communicate and sort through all the bug reports. With a smaller, local group of dedicated closed beta testers, they can control how many people they expose to the initial builds. They can set up systems to most efficiently relay feedback and start discussion with the testers, moving at an optimum pace while they fix anything they stumble on. If they feel they need more testers, they aren't limited to, for instance, choosing ten and sticking with those ten forever. They have the capability to modify the amount of people testing, while still having control over logistics and communication.

On the other hand, if it goes into open beta first, how are they going to communicate with the multitude of individual users who have encountered similar problems? Is their small team ready to deal with any number of initial posts which may not be readily discernible from one another? How many "crash on starting planet" threads will be copies, and how many will be genuinely unique problems? How will they communicate with online players who do not necessarily maintain a workable routine for them? Just because you're an accomplished beta tester doesn't mean your input will be given the developers in the most efficient manner, especially if they have to wait to potentially hours before they get a reply. What if the person giving their input has a timezone difference of 4 hours, and other related posts aren't as helpful because they don't adhere to the same standard?

There's a reason why most games run a closed beta test before releasing an open beta test, and I seriously doubt that the team has the resources to run and maintain both forms. This, in conjunction with the reasons I've stated above, lead me to believe that a closed beta test would simply be more feasible than an open beta test.

 

It is true that an open beta can not garuntee results, but by doing a closed beta you are also limiting the results you can get is all im saying. True for a small team like chucklfish an open beta may be sort of a nightmarish situation, but if they are dedicated to having a great game, they would be able to handle it, just take more time like they said they are willing to. While true in a closed beta they can start with a controlled group and expand as needed, they will only choose some people and some of the people they choose may not be of much help. Even in closed betas you will see copied posts about a bug just so it gets fixed, or youll see a bug get bumped up on the forum. But it is easy to tell when a bug is being bumped and when there is an actuall issue that needs addressing.

Either way though, i mean, with closed betas you are truly limiting yourself and while yes results can be more controlld, you are still going to miss out on the results an open beta can bring. Both have advantages and disadvantages, but neither one is better or worse than the other. Im just merely suggesting that an open beta has a possibilty for higher results than a closed beta, and in all honesty it is true. While yes you have those that wont care or do anything, you have the higher chances of encountering people (like myself) who are expierenced beta testers and are able to help curve the game towards being better.

All that aside though the developers are gona do what they wanna do. While hoping to see an open beta just so i can help out on a game im gona be playing for along time to come when it comes out, i just want to be able to enjoy it as bug free as possible.

On a side note, if im not mistaken this game uses C++ programming, and while it is a very flexible and easy to use source, it can lead to many flaws. Another great thing about having the open beta to the closed it you can get people who know C++ scripting who find flaws to not only give feed back about a bug they saw, but also if they have had any experience writing in C++, they can send a rough code to the developers to help them work through bugs.

So all in all, both sides have arguments for an against but it all boils down to developers choosing and comfortablity. Either way i will be buying the game and any bugs i do find in it will end up being reported so that the game can be better for others .

 

First of all, let's establish one basic assumption; If they're going to select people for a closed beta test, it would be logical to assume that they select people who they feel will be beneficial to the actual test, so that shouldn't be an issue. If there is a screening process for selecting a closed beta tester, then it is highly unlikely that a significant portion of the testers would not be able to contribute positively to the test. And yes, while there will be copied posts of a bug, the analysis would both be higher quality than average, and there would be less copies than in an open beta test.

While it is true that an open beta test has a higher potential for a positive result, it also has a much higher potential for negative results. They may occasionally stumble across people who fell through the hypothetical screening process of a closed beta, but they are guaranteed to receive input from people who failed the screening process outright. The chance to encounter an insightful beta tester becomes irrelevant if you've fixed the rate of occurrence to 100% by screening everyone.

I do agree that both methods have their merits, though. It really depends on what sort of thing they're using the beta phase to test. General bug tests and optimization fixes, stuff which become higher priority during release, are better suited to larger crowds. However, if their test has a specific direction, such as determining the effectiveness of their procedurally generated map system, or core functionality of their AI systems, there's little point in expanding the number of beta testers beyond a certain limit.

And in regards to the fact that fans can contribute code, that depends on the work in question. If the coder already knows what the cause of an error is, then the fan contribution is redundant. If the coder does not know the problem, then a fan contribution has a diminished value because the coding conventions for the program are likely not public knowledge. If the submitted code is incompatible with the preestablished code structure used in the program, such as calling improper arguments, function and variable types, or even using non-existing libraries, then the coder still has to write the code anyways. And that's even assuming the fan has touched on the right bug, since they can't analyze the code directly. What if they assume the error is with, for instance, character control functions when the real problem lies in the coding system for the randomly generated weapons? Because the testers, especially open beta testers, will not have access to the game code, programming experience of a tester is largely ineffectual.

I respect your position, and I can understand the basis of some of your arguments, but I still personally believe that a closed beta system is more likely, and more helpful, to the game than an open beta system.


On a lighter note, we should probably stop omnomnom-ing the thread and let other people comment.