PDA

View Full Version : No Beta good or bad?


FPS GLIMMER
03-08-2012, 10:44 PM
As you all have seen there will be no beta for the new halo. I believe that this is a bad idea. Not that its because I don't get a chance to play it, but I feel that since this is this is SUCH a large franchise that it will need testing.



or



they don't need a new beta since they will be a pretty much copy and paste from halo reach.


I personally was not a fan of reach and I stopped playing it after a month. It really lost the fun feeling that halo 3 had. All the new tweaks made it not feel like halo anymore.

iBuzz7S
03-08-2012, 10:59 PM
Bad move. Although the game won't need a beta, it would of been great to work out any kinks it may have.

As long as they do not remove online things that Bungie put to help Halo be a more fluid online experience, then it should be okay.

DEG23
03-08-2012, 11:05 PM
If Bungie was making Halo 4 i would say, 'no beta, no big deal'. Seeing how this is 343's first big game i am worried that there might be bugs or problems that may not be discovered until release day, but hey, i'm still going to be picking this up day 1 and i'm sure there will be a bitching thread on this site to accomodate me if there are problems.:p

Dz06lt
03-09-2012, 02:11 AM
halo will always be halo, the last game didnt need a beta neither does this game. A new franchise sure but not this one

MixMaker1
03-09-2012, 04:45 AM
This is a new perspective on Halo. I like the fact they are confident enough in their product to NOT roll out a beta. Guaranteed 5 & 6 WILL have betas. But with 4, they should just roll it out.

Un1qu31yR4nD0m
03-09-2012, 11:10 AM
I think it's bad thing it really depends how u look at it really the game when it comes out may have bugs and glitches they didn't realize it having and stuffs up the game.

Darkforce412
03-09-2012, 04:36 PM
Bad move. Although the game won't need a beta, it would of been great to work out any kinks it may have.

As long as they do not remove online things that Bungie put to help Halo be a more fluid online experience, then it should be okay.

agree, i for one think they should of done what reach did, that way they can test to see how the weapons work and how ppl will use them. so far i dont like what 343 is doing, i just hope they dont put in any more armor abilities in this game like the armor lock really killed the game totally.

Ty-Rex
03-09-2012, 07:14 PM
halo will always be halo, the last game didnt need a beta neither does this game. A new franchise sure but not this one
Yeah, Halo Reach definitely didn't have a beta...

The game should have a beta. It's looking like it's going to be very different from past Halo games, and I'm just slowly losing faith in 343 as Halo 4 is slowly devolving into another CoD clone. I really want this game to be great since I love Halo more than any other series, but I don't know, I'm just confused with the decisions they are making.

fastNcurious
03-09-2012, 08:53 PM
I think it's smart of them not to do a public beta.

Here's what has happened with the betas from the past couple of years. People whine and moan about how horrible the beta plays, that the game is going to suck, and that developers need to fix X,Y, and Z. They treat the beta as a demo and rage about how they're not going to be suckered into buying this game. The developers then have to waste their time dealing with PR to ensure people this is a beta, it consists of things that are 3 months old, the final game does not look or play like this, we're just testing connectivity. They have to waste time addressing complaints, and stress themselves over all the hatred and anger from the fans on the one hand, the pressure from the press on the other, and the scrutiny of their management/publishers from above.

Given all this, what insane developer would do a public beta. If gamers acted more rationally and worked more cooperatively with the developers, recognizing that it's an old work in progress, then yes, it can be a beneficial relationship. But all people do is whine and make uneducated complaints. If I was a developer, I would never do a public beta.

Explodius
03-12-2012, 05:31 AM
Very bad move. Apart from BF3 I've enjoyed every beta I've played and it has only made me want to buy the game even more. Not to mention the fact that whatever closed testing 343 is doing can't hope to find as many bugs as over 100k people playing it and posting feedback.

RBmaster9345
03-12-2012, 01:09 PM
Bad. Releasing Beta's are great for working through bugs and getting test time in

LTC PUDIE 42X
03-12-2012, 09:13 PM
I think it's smart of them not to do a public beta.

Here's what has happened with the betas from the past couple of years. People whine and moan about how horrible the beta plays, that the game is going to suck, and that developers need to fix X,Y, and Z. They treat the beta as a demo and rage about how they're not going to be suckered into buying this game. The developers then have to waste their time dealing with PR to ensure people this is a beta, it consists of things that are 3 months old, the final game does not look or play like this, we're just testing connectivity. They have to waste time addressing complaints, and stress themselves over all the hatred and anger from the fans on the one hand, the pressure from the press on the other, and the scrutiny of their management/publishers from above.

Given all this, what insane developer would do a public beta. If gamers acted more rationally and worked more cooperatively with the developers, recognizing that it's an old work in progress, then yes, it can be a beneficial relationship. But all people do is whine and make uneducated complaints. If I was a developer, I would never do a public beta.

One major point of a public Beta is user feedback people that complain about those that give their feedback tend to forget that as well. Sure you're going to have players that give opinions that you may not agree with but it's still theirs to have, it's up to the Dev to listen to the opinion or not.

Gears of War had a very successful Beta, then there's the not so much "Battlefield 3" though Dice did sort out allot of networking issue's it really depends on the Dev and what their plan is with the Beta considering Bungie has a very good history with planing Beta's maybe "hopefully" they'll take that to 343.

I believe it's a mistake to not have one considering their a new company with many workers not familiar with working on a Halo project their also hinting at a few series changing feature's so it's a very large risk and it will make or break their studio as it may very well ruin the Halo we know and love. Just my opinion. ;)

MixMaker1
03-13-2012, 04:22 PM
I'm sure they have been using the Reach TU/updates as somewhat of a beta in terms of networking.

That being said, I think it's a GOOD thing they're not releasing a beta. Stick with your guts, instincts and decisions. I feel like I'm going into Halo 3 all over again - minus the beta. I'm quite excited.

LTC PUDIE 42X
03-14-2012, 05:35 PM
I'm sure they have been using the Reach TU/updates as somewhat of a beta in terms of networking.

That being said, I think it's a GOOD thing they're not releasing a beta. Stick with your guts, instincts and decisions. I feel like I'm going into Halo 3 all over again - minus the beta. I'm quite excited.
Needless to say Halo 3 wouldn't have had the same release if it didn't have the additional support that comes from the millions that participated in the Beta. I seriously doubt most gamers actually know what the purpose of a Beta is, otherwise they wouldn't say/think it's a bad thing. If they are going to make half of the graphical improvements articles are writing about they would basically have to rewrite the net-code, how else would it render properly in a online match if they were not to??

DarkReign2021
03-16-2012, 02:01 AM
Ncurious and Pudie are both correct. Public beta's are indeed important because it allows the developers to stress test the networks to ensure that the game can handle massive numbers of people at a time. It is also used as an effective means of weeding out those very rare glitches that every game presents. It's beneficial to the developer because whereas they have to pay 1 person to play a game 1000 times to try and reenact a glitch, they can get 1000 people to play 1 game with the same results free of charge.

That said, the use of a public beta has grown wildly out of control. The majority of the people involved in a public beta have absolutely no interest in playing the game for the sake of making it better. They treat it as a demo, than judge the game for what it is instead of what it could be. In reality a beta tester's job is far from the Glorious "Gets payed to play videogames" that people think it is. Beta testing usually involves a small team that is required to perform extremely repetitive tasks such as opening the same Loot chest over and over repeatedly and individuals commonly only play through a small portion of the game, each member commonly playing maybe 1 or 2 levels in a campaign or testing a couple of the maps in multiplayer. After every batch of tests they perform they are required to fill out paperwork detailing issues they found and making suggestions on things that could make the game stronger in the final release.

While I support the idea of Public Betas, I think they need to be more selective. Limit it to a group under 1000 and set requirements. 18+, High School Graduate, College Reading and Writing level, etc... Perhaps an essay submission could be required on the application. These gamers earn the right to play this game ahead of time, but they're locked into a contractual legal agreement that requires them to fill out surveys and do small write-ups on their findings and opinions.

This would enable the game to get it's server stress test to a small degree as well as it's mass-reproduction attempt for glitch testing and it would enable the dedicated fans to play the game while offering constructive criticism and enabling the developers to better the game before launch without having to weed through "This game is garbage. CoD is better!" 2 million times a day. (Not to mention this COULD technically count as experience in the game industry toward your resume. For all you industry-minded folks out there.)

I mak3 big boom
03-16-2012, 03:39 AM
I'm dissapointed but I'm still buying it day 1.

MixMaker1
03-16-2012, 04:32 PM
Ncurious and Pudie are both correct. Public beta's are indeed important because it allows the developers to stress test the networks to ensure that the game can handle massive numbers of people at a time. It is also used as an effective means of weeding out those very rare glitches that every game presents. It's beneficial to the developer because whereas they have to pay 1 person to play a game 1000 times to try and reenact a glitch, they can get 1000 people to play 1 game with the same results free of charge.

That said, the use of a public beta has grown wildly out of control. The majority of the people involved in a public beta have absolutely no interest in playing the game for the sake of making it better. They treat it as a demo, than judge the game for what it is instead of what it could be. In reality a beta tester's job is far from the Glorious "Gets payed to play videogames" that people think it is. Beta testing usually involves a small team that is required to perform extremely repetitive tasks such as opening the same Loot chest over and over repeatedly and individuals commonly only play through a small portion of the game, each member commonly playing maybe 1 or 2 levels in a campaign or testing a couple of the maps in multiplayer. After every batch of tests they perform they are required to fill out paperwork detailing issues they found and making suggestions on things that could make the game stronger in the final release.

While I support the idea of Public Betas, I think they need to be more selective. Limit it to a group under 1000 and set requirements. 18+, High School Graduate, College Reading and Writing level, etc... Perhaps an essay submission could be required on the application. These gamers earn the right to play this game ahead of time, but they're locked into a contractual legal agreement that requires them to fill out surveys and do small write-ups on their findings and opinions.

This would enable the game to get it's server stress test to a small degree as well as it's mass-reproduction attempt for glitch testing and it would enable the dedicated fans to play the game while offering constructive criticism and enabling the developers to better the game before launch without having to weed through "This game is garbage. CoD is better!" 2 million times a day. (Not to mention this COULD technically count as experience in the game industry toward your resume. For all you industry-minded folks out there.)
Spot on.

With the size of 343i, and some things I've heard personally, they have an in depth testing team. I don't mind the decision of no beta. I want Halo 4 to hit home, feel fresh and new, and arrive with a surprise in my hands, all at the same time.

Ty-Rex
03-17-2012, 04:20 AM
With the size of 343i, and some things I've heard personally, they have an in depth testing team.
Still, I've always figured public betas were great for Halo, and any game really, because the sheer number of people playing enables glitches and exploits to be found much easier. It's not like the devs need to listen to every single person who plays the game. People shitted up b.net when the Halo 3 and Reach betas were active with all kinds of stupid comments about how Halo was totally ruined, but still, all the devs had to do was test the most commonly complained about things, see if they thought it was working as intended, and act upon it if necessary.

Just think of it this way; within the first 24 hours of Halo 4 beta, you will literally end up with thousands of hours of playtime. I don't care how big your testing department is (and protip, no testing department is ever big enough), you're not going to be able to match those numbers and get the kind of potentially large bugs sorted out that only arise due to some odd circumstances.

Whatever anyway, I just hope the game doesn't suck. And even if it does suck, I'll still play it. Hell, I still play Reach almost daily and that game is pretty not-spectacular.

DarkReign2021
03-17-2012, 04:37 AM
I'm at a point where I rarely play any of the Halo games anymore, but that doesn't keep me from loving the universe and owning all of the games. I still play the campaigns from time to time and I still follow the game manically. Good or bad, I still plan on owning Halo 4 and I still plan on loving it just like I love Mass Effect 3 even after the dreadful ending they piled on us.

Embre0
03-29-2012, 07:31 PM
Bad....they don't need a beta, but they should release it in order to infuse trust into people

ajennice
04-09-2012, 02:58 AM
50/50... If they garentee they will replace any console damaged by using the BETA- then go for it. But no one will ever do that. i've beta'ed games on PC/360 and programs that have wrecked my shit. I've replaced 2 consoles and restored my pc like 6 times... no more for me.
if you want he bugs out, go into it open minded and let the updates/patches come thru via LIVE. Even with BETA you will never get a perfect game. REACh was beta'ed and was glitchy in FF modes (hiding spots off maps , ablility to cross soft kill spots for a little ledge to hide out on -even tho the community pointed this out several times nothing was ever done about it.), campaign mode where you could unspawn the covi, ride the pelican, do the nighfall wall jump...etc. Even though the proof was posted on here and various sites, nothing was done. So, unless you do a beta and come across something big that will shut the game down, make it unplayable, or damage consoles, the rest of it will be handled on a need to do basis- which never gets done.

FireWarrior316
04-09-2012, 03:07 AM
I haven't been happy with the last few Halo games. If they don't put a demo out I won't be wasting my time and money with another disappointment. I am prepared to get all the hate in the world. I don't care. The only good shooter series left is ........ no they all are kinda crappy now. Battlefield was a letdown in some ways. Gears is getting stale. CoD is an abortion that should have happened. Left 4 Dead is the only tolerable one but still is repetitive and kinda bland in the long run, no real story,nothing to follow.

Sour Pug Diesel
04-09-2012, 04:15 AM
really want a beta, cant wait to get back into halo shape:uzi:

SM Rollinger
04-14-2012, 05:47 PM
reminds me of when movie studios refuse to screen a film for critics to review, before it comes out. they do that because they know the movie is going to suck, and if people know that their less likely to see it

DarkReign2021
04-14-2012, 07:15 PM
reminds me of when movie studios refuse to screen a film for critics to review, before it comes out. they do that because they know the movie is going to suck, and if people know that their less likely to see it

True, except that Videogames NEVER had a public beta before this generation. Halo 3 was the first game to do this and now every company is just jumping on the bandwagon. It's a concept that most of the gaming community is sadly not mature enough to fully comprehend or understand.

Now a demo would be wholly welcomed and we may or may not get to play a demo for Halo 4 at some point (Halo:CE, Halo Wars, and Halo: Reach all had demos, but Halo 2, Halo 3, and ODST never had one, so our chances are 50:50 on getting one.) Not having a demo these days doesn't mean much though since the concept of demo's for a full-retail game are slowly dying out. It's effort and man hours spent producing a free product that could be spent on improving any numbe of elements in the full game, so a lot of developers tend to be hesitant, especially when it's a high dollar Triple-A release.