It seems the term “beta” is getting tossed around a lot as of late by developers, publishers, gaming press and enthusiasts, and it seems to be getting painted as being an elite privilege that only the crème de la crème are given access to.
Sure, getting to play games like Gears of War 3, Battlefield 3, or Uncharted 3 (What’s with the slew of third-game-in-the-series trends this year? Sheesh!) before they hit retail shelves is a cool bonus, considering early access to games used to be a press-only privilege. But are developers giving themselves and the testers, enough time to get accurate feedback and fix serious bugs before releasing to stores?
Battlefield 3's former Lead Designer has revealed that there were two cut missions from the main campaign
Get rid of campaigns, move the game to mobile, and try to compete with warzone. They would save time and money.
For those who don't have time for massive open worlds or role-playing games with epic tales, these 15 games are worth checking out.
Gears of War 3 and Judgement servers have returned to their "updated" condition, adding several features, such as increased XP and more.
I currently play Gears 3 often, especially after the 60 FPS Boost. Gears of War is my favorite gaming franchise, and the Locusts are the coolest faction in history. Gears Judgment will always be a disgrace for not having the Locust in VS multiplayer.
GoW 3 and Judgement were the last installments before the series went woke and soulless. I'm level 50 in GoW 3 and LOVE it's multiplayer to death. It's just so crispy.
ok again,
its easy to explain.
CLOSED BETA :
indeph testing of a game with selected people that are known to report and search for bugs (not just play the game early without contributing any found bugs).
this stage is mostly in the last 6 months of a 2-3 year dev cycle.
found bugs are ironed out
OPEN BETA:
huge mass testing mostly to test highload impacts on multiplayer components nearly to launchdate. this ensures they have tested the infastructure of theyre servers to fix any problem due to masses of player hitting the servers.
Such tests can be done near to launch since fixes are relativly fast applied or upscaled
most open beta still ahve bugs that a closed beta have fixed allready since you got to get a release client with ms and sony wich takes months.
EARLY ACCESS:
This is something completl different, its a marketing thing to let people try your game.
mostly games that arent profen to have a high adaption rate since they entered the mp market not to long ago
Can you judge a game by its beta ?
not really, its more like a teaser what could be the game in the end, its that simple a beta is for contributers that want to shape the game and make it better in the end.
competitive games for example use this stage to fit the game to the esports community prior to launch.
Most FPS studios for example invite pro gamers several months prior to launch inhouse and let them test the game and take theyre feedback to make the product more user orientated and to fix design problems.
there my 2 cents
and yes i come from the games industry
TBH, gamers (and journalists for that matter) who don't know the difference between a beta and a demo - have no business being in a beta to begin with.
The issue of when this beta was released has more to do with it using an entirely new engine...he comments about how well MS and Epic handled the beta of Gears 3 by releasing its test so far in advance...
doesn't work that way with brand new technology being coded for 3 different platforms...
Epic had a majority of their team working on Gears 3 for 3 years...on an engine that was properly optimized for the 360 half a decade ago...They weren't on the front burner at all in any development sense for Gears 3...
Dice?...pumped out BFBC2 less than 2 years ago...then released the multiplayer portion of MOH less than a year from BC2's release...ALL THE WHILE building a state of the art engine from the ground up...
we're lucky we got a beta at all...and that the game hasn't been delayed...I'll take a day 1 patch if it truly fixes things...over a 3 month push...any day...
I think in the case of battlefield, they got the whole beta thing wrong. I think the way they callously put out that shambles of a beta shows they really don't give a crap. They had a better build before the open beta went up... Why didn't they use that? It'd drive sales if what people were playing was good.
Okay, it's not really fair to judge a game by the beta, but people definitely will. I certainly have. Why would a developer with a reputation to keep throw out such an early build as a public beta? It just played bad. Did they not try playing it themselves before rolling it out for millions of people to play?
I know loads of people who were really excited for this game and now they're disappointed after playing the beta.
Anyway, that's what I think. I feel like this debate has been going on forever. Lets just see how it is when it's out, shall we?