Exploring the Current State of Beta Testing

Karen Hertzberg writes "Since the earliest days of MMO gaming, beta testing has played a pivotal role in the success or failure of our persistent worlds. We've come a long way since the initial tests of Ultima Online and The Realm, but what role do our current beta tests play in the potential outcomes of unreleased titles? To answer this question, Ten Ton Hammer turned to current and former beta decision makers at Cryptic Studios, NetDevil, Sony Online Entertainment, Funcom, and Mythic Entertainment. Some of their answers — and the information they reveal — may surprise you."

Comments

There Really Are Some Gems in This Article

[eldavojohn]

That I wish the game companies and everyone would learn from:

[Beta] seems to be more about marketing the game and hyping it up.

So completely accurate.

Honestly I feel that nowadays the developers get confused and can not find a happy medium between listening to every single testers opinion and listening to nobody. In some beta tests I have felt the community was highly ignored while in other tests I have felt that the developers tried to cater to every single tester. Both are and were recipes for failure.

Beta tests now are glorified demos for the games. It used to be so much different. I really hate what's been done to them, and the only way to be a 'real' tester now is to get into the alpha's or in some rare cases early closed betas.

Backing up the first quote and pointing out what Betas have become.

I wish there were more people submitting bug reports, but that's the way it goes with beta, and weâ(TM)re still finding them regardless. Besides, I need all types [of players]. I need the exploits so we can find them ... I need the jerks.

At first I was shocked they would want the scripters and botmakers on so early but I soon understood that you want to catch these serious things as early as possible to fix them because:

By the time beta begins, you've made decision after decision that have compounded on each other. Your assumptions' assumptions' have assumptions about what your game is. The whole product, systems, content, operations, marketing, PR, community ramp, you name it -- is built upon them. Changing core assumptions about the product itself is unlikely to be possible without significant delays, costing progressively more money per month. (Remember, the months toward the end of the dev cycle are the most expensive ones by far.)

Ultimately, you need to believe in your product before you conduct any sort of open beta or release a demo. You can message to players all you want that the game is a "work in progress" and that many things will change before final release, but that wonâ(TM)t stop them from making judgments about the title based on their beta experiences.

I believe that's the fundamental reason behind Blizzard's horrid schedule slippages.

It is disappointing to say, but testing has become a bit of a joke, and I feel that the current crop of recent games are a reflection of that. So many games are being released incomplete (as far as hyped features go) and containing issues that should have been picked up and resolved during the closed beta phase at the latest, but this isn't happening.

It's the classic cash in while you still can mentality that has seen the release of so many unstable games only to have the servers shut off or merged down within a year.

Here's to hoping the gaming industry finds and reads this article ... we're in a bad spot right now.

Re:There Really Are Some Gems in This Article

[fractoid]

I believe that's the fundamental reason behind Blizzard's horrid schedule slippages.

(Warning: rabid Blizzard fanboy post ahead:) In the early days, yes, Blizzard had some pretty bad schedule slippages. Unlike most companies, they correctly identified the problem to be the schedule, not the slippages. The reason that their games are still regularly played over 10 years after release is the uncompromising attitude towards quality. That's why these days they keep everything completely dark until a game's already been in development for a couple of years, and they don't commit to a release date until a couple of months before that date.

Games are art, and artwork isn't done until it's done. You can schedule an accounting app, because it has a strict function that's determined by an arbitrary set of rules. You can't schedule 'finishing' a game because the completion criteria are incredibly fuzzy and vauge. "It has to be fun." "The storyline needs to be engaging." "The player has to feel significant." "The world needs to be realistic." If you don't give this stuff enough time to be iterated over and refined, you end up with a bodgy game no matter how good your tech is.