Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

When Is A MMORPG Beta Not A Beta?

Posted by simoniker on from the when-it's-ajar dept.

Thanks to Skotos for its editorial discussing the definition and previous use of the 'Beta phase' in relation to MMO titles. The writer argues, overall, that "The problems [in Beta] arise because of the differing agendas of the parties involved in bringing the games to and through the Beta process." He then posits that, "well before the full featureset is in place, the complexity surpasses the point where internal QA processes are adequate to cope", but "on the other hand, for the purposes of getting high-quality feedback that tells you what is wrong and where to look in order to fix it, Beta sucks." So, it's suggested, the end result is that "[massively multiplayer] Betas become exercises in community management, usually long before the team is ready to make the transition from developing a game to operating one. Meanwhile, an increasingly jaded marketplace is judging the Beta against the same standards they judge games at launch, or even years past their launch." What, if anything, can be done to ameliorate or fix these problems?

5 of 65 comments (clear)

  1. How About Incentives? by illuminata · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When a player successfully finds and reports a problem in the game, they could be awarded with extra stats, items, in-game money, etc. In fact, maybe real prizes like exclusive clothing, figurines, developer autographs, cash credit at an affiliate site, or just plain old cash would help out too.

    The prizes probably should be rated by severity of the issue that they brought to light. As they find more problems, they would get more prizes.

    It probably wouldn't hurt to give a special thanks page, possibly even a rankings page so that it could be turned into a true competition. The testers could receive a special title for when the game is officially released, too.

    Gamers tend to like free stuff that nobody else can get and respect within the game that they're playing. Any one of these ideas should be able to feed both needs.

    --


    Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
    1. Re:How About Incentives? by illuminata · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, a good development team would provide a clear outline of exactly how they want a bug reported. If a report didn't adhere to those guidelines close enough, they could just keep it in a rumor area for potential reference and to see if there are any rumors that seem to be similar. Any reports that are pretty bad could just be deleted with a message being sent out to the tester. I also had an idea for handing out demerits for duplicate reports in my reply to JavaLord, that way the tester would want to make sure that they keep track of the process.

      A separate area should be made for criticism with clear guidelines of how it should be reported There also should be an explanation of what is considered a bug and what is considered criticism.

      Because you likely won't have the same type of quality people testing your game that you have working on projects like open source software, I think that a private beta would be much more fitting. That way, you'll have much less bad feedback because you'll have a limited number of people sending you feedback. In a public beta, you can't control the amount of feedback that you receive. Thus, ou're very likely to have a great amount of poor quality feedback because you can't control the quality of the tester. In a private beta, if a tester does a bad job or barely contributes, you just delete their account and grab another tester.

      --


      Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
    2. Re:How About Incentives? by 1019 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Blizzard does this in a sense with their "Blizzard Friends" program where if you are selected for a Beta and you consistantly provide original and reproducable bugs in the game, you get added to the Friends list. The users on this list are automatically entered into the next Blizzard beta (whatever it will be..in this case the WoW Beta) but then they have to re-earn the right to be on the list for that one and so on and so on.

      I don't know if rewarding bug-hunters with stat/item upgrades would be in the best interest of trying to develop an environment so dependant on balance, but I think Blizzard has a good idea.

      I was selected for the Warcraft III: Frozen Throne Beta but unfortunately did not have the time to be a persistant tester, despite it being very fun.

      Here's hoping for WoW!

      --
      shame on us / for all we have done / and all we ever were / just zeroes and ones
  2. Possible Solution by Josiwe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A company like Square-Enix could very easily maintain a stable of beta testers across 5-10 games, rotating in fresh blood every time to keep the pool alive as certain testers grow older and have less time to beta test. After each beta cycle non-responsive or poor quality beta testers could be thanked and excused from service - they could even maintain two pools, one for actual testing and one for winnowing out efficient beta testers.

    Think of it like a job interview where the compensation is getting to play cutting edge games way ahead of the public as well as getting the developer's ear. And the company gets a small pool of very good testers (maybe 300) that they can count on to do good work and still be around for FFDQXXVI Online.

    --
    Yvan Eht Nioj!
    1. Re:Possible Solution by MachDelta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Atari has already started something like that. Its over at Betatests.net. The basic idea is that you register an account, and then apply to various games to undergo beta testing. As you report bugs (though BetaTests.net) and generally be a good little tester, you gain 'points' and go up in 'rank'. The more points you have, and the higher rank you get, the more likely you are to be chosen for other tests by the developers surfing through your profile.

      Unfortunatly, its off to a bit of a rocky start. For one, there are a grand total of three things to test. And one isn't even a friggin game! There was a fourth game, Unreal 2: XMP (eXpanded MultiPlayer), but that test is now closed. The game/free addon was released publicly, and the existing crew of testers are being kept onboard to test future patches. Speaking of which, we're (yeah, i'm one) in the middle of testing a patch right now.
      In addition to the severe lack of games, the system doesn't even work properly. Bugs submitted through the website are generally ignored, or horribly delayed as they shuffle from Tester -> Publisher -> Developer and back. During the U2XMP test, we found it was *MUCH* faster, easier, and simpler to just use the forums to directly contact the devs. (And speaking of forums, BetaTests.net is supposed to provide forums for each test, but those were broken at the time of the XMP test too. So we wound up using a well respected fansite's forums instead). And to top it all off, due to the horribly inefficient reporting scheme, none of the developers seem to be taking (more like wasting) the time to actually give people 'points' to move up in rank.

      So all in all... good concept, but excecution is decidedly more difficult. Hopefully Atari can get things turned around in short order, but the system just isn't sustainable in its current state. Maybe once Atari figures out how to plow through this mess, other publishing groups will start similar projects. And who knows, maybe someone will eventually propose a universal database of testers?

      Anyways... just FYI, it does exist, albet tenuously