How would you manage a Vic 3 public beta?

[ImperatorLJ]

This thread is for ideas and suggestions, and assumes, theoretically, that a public beta does occur.

What all would you like for it to focus on? How you structure it? Would it even be good to have a beta? Etc.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

The means of development should be distributed among forumites and a weekly lottery should be held to determine executive developer of the week.

(I don't think Paradox has ever done a public beta beyond patches, and doubt there will be one)

 

[Mr. Wiggles]

Ez, I would hand myself a copy right now

 

[Buttons12345]

This thread is for ideas and suggestions, and assumes, theoretically, that a public beta does occur.

What all would you like for it to focus on? How you structure it? Would it even be good to have a beta? Etc.

I wouldn't. Or more realistically from a corporate perspective. Special preorder package, pay double to access beta. Super special preorder package, pay triple to access alpha. Get people to pay you to test your game.

 

[cloudwasher]

After Imperator's original release, and after the last couple DLCs on EU4, I REALLY hope Paradox finally understands that they NEED a public beta and that their QA team is simply insufficient as it is currently organized. As for how its organized, the more they can get into it the merrier. I'm getting tired of less than ready releases getting sent out into the world and then the dev teams scrambling to throw together fixes as the customers rage on the forums. We've waited a long time for Vicky 3, I really don't mind them taking a few extra months to have a widespread beta testing followed by actually giving your dev team enough time to read the reports and to correct the issues found. Having a quality product put out at launch is far far more important to me than getting it ASAP.

 

[Swirly Mango]

I do not support the idea of a public beta.

 

[Xaelyn]

Probably release it half finished at full price so players pay to bugtest and modders pay to bugfix. Why change a system that works so well?

 

[Roland Traveler]

Probably release it half finished at full price so players pay to bugtest and modders pay to bugfix. Why change a system that works so well?

Because it doesn’t? Imperator was crippled by its launch and Leviathan was so bad it was literally record breaking and news worthy. Compare with CKIII’s launch, which from what I’ve gathered was a solid game and was met with positivity.

 

[Poliut]

I'd send thoughts and prayers to the moderators, because the forums will be a mess.

 

[Shadowstrike]

Frankly, Paradox should literally call all their releases "public betas" for the first month or so. It would temper expectations about bugs in the new releases, and also give players the sense that they are getting something ahead of time. Given how teams tend to be responsive to bugs reported right after new releases anyhow, you wouldn't need to change anything at all about how the current development process works.

 

[Nirmara]

Chances are pretty much null that there will be a public beta given PDX track records so far.

It's not like their previous releaes of main titles were in a bad shape anyway (DLC is another story). CK3 had a very smooth release overall with very few bugs. The same goes for Imperator, the game did everything the way it was designed while being pretty much bug-free and with good performances overall. The main issues at release were that the game was centered around abstract mana and conquest, two things that the community grew tired of after 6+ years of Eu4. I honestly believe that Imperator would have been very well received had it came out 3 years earlier.

Regarding early access, The only major studio doing it in the strategy genre that comes to mind is Amplitude and even then they do so by working incrementally by adding more and more innovative features as development goes. I seriously doubt the same would work for any grand strategy made by Paradox Interactive since the mechanics are generally very intertwined to the point that none of them can work well in isolation if at all. It also wouldn't help the player experience that AI, performances, and balance, which are key aspects of PDX games, tend to be the last ones to be done.

 

[Niko92]

I think Johan once said that there's not a big reason to have a large public beta as the cold hard truth is that only a small percentage of players would actually give beneficial feedback. Most would just use it as an opportunity to try out a game, and in the worst case scenario, sideline the game completely based on their limited experience in the beta version. Kind of how early access games take a risk in people growing bored of the game before it is even finished.

And having a public test creates pressure to put the blame on those public testers. At the end of the day, the quality is the responsibility of the company QA alone, regardless of how many beta testers there have been.

Paradox does run closed beta groups for the games, and I think that is a much better solution as it allows you to handpick known and active forumites.