Why no beta?

[D3nn05]

I know they said no open/closed beta but why not? (i know they have some ppl in closed beta)

Most games that don't have beta or alphas usually fails or having problems at launch. And they would get better feedback and i guess that it also would reduce the chance of crashes.

 

[Frode789]

Takes man-power and time to set up a beta.. Which is better used in working on the game this close to launch. Do remember that they are a small company. I think it is the right decision.

 

[nhgrif]

Just because a game doesn't have a public alpha or public beta doesn't mean the game isn't tested. Most games (in the history of gaming) actually aren't tested publicly. Public testing is really only super important when you need to do large scale stress-testing. Otherwise, a public beta test isn't really a test so much as it is a pre-release demo to drum up more interest in the game. SimCity offered public "beta test" weekends... but these were really just "free demo" weekends... because clearly nothing was tested. They claimed that these weekends were for stress testing... but obviously not.

 

[D3nn05]

sure it takes time but it's better to delay the game and get rid of more bugs and stuff. sure they test the game but they see the game every day and then have more chance to miss things.

some exemel
AC unity had no beta or such see how that went
Bioshock inf had problems at the launch.
Simcity had alot of problems

I did not mention this because I want to participate. just want to know why some choose not to have a public test when it often make games better.

 

[Kanimir]

I know they said no open/closed beta but why not? (i know they have some ppl in closed beta)

Most games that don't have beta or alphas usually fails or having problems at launch. And they would get better feedback and i guess that it also would reduce the chance of crashes.

Umm, no? Most of the games don't have open betas. They just hire a group of people for testing, just like they did for C:SL

 

[nhgrif]

Simcity had alot of problems

SimCity also had public closed betas.

 

[D3nn05]

i did not say everyone had OPEN beta. most have public closed beta, not just a small group.

 

[Zarine]

some exemel
AC unity had no beta or such see how that went
Bioshock inf had problems at the launch.
Simcity had alot of problems

I know that at least one of those had a beta (not open but closed). For the others maybe too.
And it's not because it's not advertised that there is no beta. Some game companies pick people they think might suit their need with correct bug reports.

Beside, having beta doesn't mean that everything will go well.

 

[Synthtronic]

Whether public or closed beta, CO and Paradox will found currently the right way let to test the game in advance.

 

[nhgrif]

i did not say everyone had OPEN beta. most have public closed beta, not just a small group.

The thing is, most don't actually. At least not most that are developed by actual development companies. The times that they do have public betas (open or closed) are mostly when they need to stress test.

And that's mostly all that a public beta is good for. You don't get great bug reports out of public betas. Most people playing a public beta just want an early look at the game. Even if you find and report a bug, you're still not going to do what an actual beta tester needs to do.

An actual beta tester needs to spend time finding the bugs (not spend time playing the game), and then when a bug is found, that tester needs to spend time documenting every aspect of the bug and finding out exactly what does and does not recreate the bug.


The cost-benefit on public betas just doesn't justify doing this versus hiring professional QA people in house who spend 8 hours a day getting paid to find and reproduce bugs. These guys can also talk directly to the programmers and have an idea of exactly what each programmer is working on and exactly what needs to be tested.

 

[D3nn05]

I know that at least one of those had a beta (not open but closed). For the others maybe too.
And it's not because it's not advertised that there is no beta. Some game companies pick people they think might suit their need with correct bug reports.

Beside, having beta doesn't mean that everything will go well.

i guess you mean Bioshock? don't remember that they had beta? if they did they failed kinda hard since the game crashed 5 min in to the game for allot of ppl.

That i know. there is allot of ppl that just want to play the game early and don't give feedback.

 

[D3nn05]

The cost-benefit on public betas just doesn't justify doing this versus hiring professional QA people in house who spend 8 hours a day getting paid to find and reproduce bugs. These guys can also talk directly to the programmers and have an idea of exactly what each programmer is working on and exactly what needs to be tested.

How do you even get a job as a bug finder and how much dose the earn?^^
i guess that is allot cheaper than making a beta.

 

[Zarine]

How do you even get a job as a bug finder and how much dose the earn?^^
i guess that is allot cheaper than making a beta.

PI QA job offer

 

[nhgrif]

How do you even get a job as a bug finder and how much dose the earn?^^
i guess that is allot cheaper than making a beta.

Where I work (I'm a software developer), we hire college students as part time interns and pay $12/hr (USD) and less.

The thing about a public beta is, you still have to pay someone to sort through all of the bug reports that the public submits.

And you're still going to have to have QA in-house to work on replicating the bugs the public found and really getting to the bottom of them.

The amount of money you spend on people to collect, sort, and file public-submitted bug reports is typically better spent just having an in-hosue QA person do the testing themselves and working directly with the developers.


As I said, the only time you absolutely must have a public beta is when you're releasing some sort of online game and you need to stress test your servers. This is the sort of test that you really can't realistically do purely in-house. You can simulate it, but until you actually do it, you just can't know for sure what the server stress will be like.

 

[Lord bobyness]

I can think of one other case where an open beta can be useful. If you wan't to balance a competitive multiplayer game where there may be exploits that an in-house team probably won't find. Don't think this would matter for hoi4 (germany OP, always conquers poland, plz nrf) Also, paradox games usually have quite a bit of work done post-release anyways. Play the first version of ck2 or eu4. Or eu3 without the expansions. In a way those older versions are like the betas compared to what we have now.

There is also a major downside to an open beta the I don't think has been mentioned here yet. Players will go into the beta and their first impression of the game is of a game that is incomplete and buggy. Starbound suffered from this. No one update added enough to bring players back into the game. So the people who played the earlier versions never experienced the much better game it's turned into years later. Paradox seems to release games that really do seem finished at release. And then fund further development and improvements through expansions. And I like that more then any open beta I've seen.

 

[TotalyMoo]

Takes man-power and time to set up a beta.. Which is better used in working on the game this close to launch. Do remember that they are a small company. I think it is the right decision.

And the award for most sensible and well phrased Short Reply goes to Frode789 with "sane business practices in four sentences"! Congratulations!

 

[uebs]

And the award for most sensible and well phrased Short Reply goes to Frode789 with "sane business practices in four sentences"! Congratulations!

You know some of us would pay CO/Paradox to beta test thus paying for that person to collect the data...

 

[nhgrif]

You know some of us would pay CO/Paradox to beta test thus paying for that person to collect the data...

Do you think there are enough people willing to pay enough money (on top of what they'd already pay for the base game) in order to afford what it'd cost for the beta to be beneficial?

 

[uebs]

Do you think there are enough people willing to pay enough money (on top of what they'd already pay for the base game) in order to afford what it'd cost for the beta to be beneficial?

They should just set up a kick starter...and raise funds to hire someone for a month or possibly two depending on the release date...

I bet there would be volunteers to work for free...

$20/hr for a 40 hour work week * 2 Months = 6400, this is either more than what current CO staffer gets paid and now they'd be pissed or it's considerably low balling it...w/e

doesn't help the other city builder game got delayed like a week...oh well w/e...

 

[charlesnew]

I think most of us would be really happy to do a free beta. I mean, playing the game is how we can get paid