Capcom Implements Lost Planet Beta Feedback
Chris Kohler has the news, over at Game|Life, that Capcom is actually implementing changes to the upcoming title Lost Planet based on feedback from online component Beta testers. The multiplayer version of the game has been available via Xbox Live for some time now, and the outcry against certain game elements has resulted in fundamental changes to the game's design. From the article: "First of all, due to user feedback, next to the name of each host hosting a match will be a readout of the number of players already in the room compared to the maximum number of players allowed, so players will know how full a room is before they enter. The second update will be that if the player tries to enter a room that has been closed or where the match has already begun, the player will not be forced back out to the first player match menu to then re-search for games.. Rather, the player will be able to immediately browse and select a different session to join There will also be a button set to allow the player to Refresh the match list without having to perform a Quick Match search again."
Game developers of the world: Sit down, shut up, and start taking notes! This is how you turn a beta into a game people will actually pay for before the 'Gold Edition' (with all the patches of the last year included) is released.
Unpleasantries.
Player count, refresh button... Why do those changes sound like stuff that should have been in the game to begin with?
"Capcom Discovers Basic Server Browser Principles."
Seriously, how bone-headed do you have to be to NOT show your users how many people are in a server? Oh well. At least they have--unlike some companies--learned that people hate having to refresh server lists every time they fail to join a game, and really hate having to scroll through menus over and over for no reason at all. They're still doing better than some developers out there as far as server browser design.
Perhaps fundamentally more important, why can't they implement dynamic joining of games in progress, like what most PC FPSes have done for years now? I hope that kind of crap doesn't start to become popular on PC, if that's what this console "matchmaking" nonsense is about. Let me find my own servers.
How on earth did those issues get past QA in the first place? None of these "issues" should have ever been developed this way.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
If they lost a planet, they should care. ;)
I completely misunderstood that title. Here's what I thought it meant:
A company named "Capcom Implements" has accidentally "Lost" their entire database of "Beta Feedback" for their upcoming game, "Planet".
Daniel
I dunno what fantasy world you live in, but almost every successful game on the Xbox received patches. Hell Live itself was a patch for the Xbox a year or two after it was released. Not exactly a good precedent. They often included an extra thing for the game too with the patch, but a patch, is a patch. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory required a patch due to a bad matchmaking bug, and Halo 2 has received multiple patches for issues all over the board. I remeber there were a ton more, but it's been so long I can't remeber specifics. MS had the same no patches allowed mentality then too they are supposed to have now. I laughed it then, and I still do. Before consoles had the finality of, "thats it" now more work can be done! Not anymore unfortunately. Were now buying beta versions of games on disk with final patches that get patches made for them.
Uh, for allowing beta testing to happen?
I don't see where "patching over Live" comes into this. Lost Planet's not out yet.
... the Beta Testers demanded basic features that are included in like every single other multiplayer game.
Seriously, this sounds like features that were mature in Half Life.
Way to go! What will they come up with next? Perhaps a revolutionary notion of connecting computers together into a "network", or a device emitting a cohesive beam of parallel light called a "laser", or a protective layer around the Earth called the "ozone".
PES6 on 360 is fun to play DESPITE your ignorance of basic functions an online title should have.
Capcom seem to grasp the concept that "next gen" does not mean higher resolution but 50% less features and lots of slow-down.
Isn't the whole point of beta-testing to get more testdata from a broad userbase and use the feedback to improve and finish your product? How is this news? Has the state of affairs in gameland deteriorated to a point where a developer actually doing something with beta-tester feedback is news?
Players in online gaming seem to be forgetting that a beta-test is not a free trial, a cheap way to play games or a sneak preview. Although a beta can be useful to try a game for free, doesn't usually cost anything (and if it does, companies deserve punishment) and will give you an early look at a game, all of that is not the point.
I'm well aware that that a lot of developers -seem- deaf to the feedback of their userbase, but honestly: a lot of this feedback consists of all sorts of unreasonable, unbalancing or simply impossible demands and gripes. That still leaves some, or perhaps quite a few depending on your point of view, developers that need to start paying attention. But I honestly doubt the OP has something news-worthy here.
Why is this news? A software development company does what it's supposed to do...
It should be common practice to implement feedback that got back from beta-testers. (perhaps not all, but certainly vital findings such as the ones mentioned here)
In the corporate world, where testing is apparently better incorporated into software design, it's already done like that.
I am a software tester, and when I find problems in software, the developers'd better solve it, otherwise the client will be notified of the problems in the software. (Every finding will be a 'known' issue, and its severity is marked with it in the documentation that comes with the piece of software, for management and other decision-making people to consider, and decide following the set levels of acceptance)
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
Were now buying beta versions of games on disk with final patches that get patches made for them.
The reason that console games in the past were "that's it" is because there was no effective way to patch them. If you believe past console games shipped with no bugs, then I don't know what sort of fantasy world you live in. The fact that consoles now have internet connections and hard drives allow them to be patched. A game in the past would have annoying UI issues and people would just have to accept it. But now, if the developer realizes they can improve something, they have a mechanism to do it.
Not saying that it has the possibility of companies using the ship it now, fix it later method...but I am really not seeing people putting out games that should still be in beta.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
In theory, they're trying to fix it before they ship it, so you don't have to deal with that kind of half-baked shit. :)
These "fixes" are just common sense. Who would design an interface that worked the way it did before the fixes? First off you can't tell if a server is full. Second, if you connect to a full server, you get kicked back to the main screen and have to search for servers all over again. That is just ridiculous.