Of course, most of you shouldn't need me to tell you what a game being in Beta means. There's two kinds of betas that I'd like to talk about, and I'm certain we'll have our disagreements about them.
The first of which is what I like to call a "packaged Beta." Adding that connotation would imply that a game in its Beta stage has been given the thumbs-up to be shipped out. Well, that's exactly what I'm shooting for. Not gonna run down the list of what I consider a packaged Beta, but I will clarify some of the characteristics of what I consider amount to such:
-a general lack of polish
-general oversights that could be considered "bonehead mistakes."
-the majority of gameplay features just generally feel like they're "good enough," like they could be better
-whenever a game either requires a great deal of firmware updates to be more playable, or the main purpose of firmware updates are to actually improve the core game
-various poorly-designed aspects of the game
-plenty of opportunities that allow for user exploits
-a significant number of bugs
-the bugs don't even have to be game-breaking; a good number of bugs can and do snowball
-game-breaking bugs included
-whenever bugs/glitches in a game are a normal thing
Of course, it's a little more nuanced than a meager list, but you get the point. Just because there's a bug or two doesn't mean the game's incomplete; sometimes, shit happens to skirt by the development process. However, things that "skirt by" shouldn't include poorly-executed gameplay settings/features and enough bugs to choke a large animal.
So why bring this up now? Well, I've seen the number of packaged Beta games actually increase over the last console generation, and now with the Twins adopting x86 architecture and the Wii U getting haphazard ports, I'm paranoid of an increase in packaged Betas. Hell, there's already some companies that have made selling packaged Betas their MO, such as everyone's favorite company, EA. Even worse is that not only will people actively defend companies such as EA and Bethesda on account of them "making good shit" (debatable on both accounts) and being big-time developers/publishers, but standards have certainly been lowered to tolerate purchasing these packaged Betas. "As long as the gameplay's fun, broseph!" Well, you gotta set the bar SOMEWHERE, son!
And that's the thing; the bar HAS been set. It's just that developers are trying their hardest to barely meet it.
Another kind of Beta I'd like to mention are glorified test Betas. Y'know, the ones that are free to play/download and you just tell the developer whenever you have a problem? Yeah. I do indeed have a major issue with those, the biggest of which is that the beta test process rather pales in comparison when opposed to the proper way to do it (which involves actually hiring people to do the shit).
Wanna know the major difference? When you've given someone an obligation to actually do a thorough job, they're more likely to do a thorough job (mind-blowing, I know). When you throw a test beta out into the wild, anyone and everyone who participates in it have ZERO obligations to even play it. They're not even required to actually report the damn bugs. Even if you give a ticket that can be renewed after each report, you're only playing at a constant back-scratch game, and one can simply not put up with your bullshit and back out of the whole ordeal. Paying someone to sink hundreds, if not thousands, of hours into assisting the development process is a sound investment, seeing as though polishing the game is the hard part as opposed to actually making it.
Lemme take it a step further; beta-testing doesn't even ensure a polished product will be produced. So why not improve the efficacy of the beta-testing process by hiring testers? Big-name companies tend to get away with the shit a lot more because apparently the entire gaming "community" has turned into British music fans (if it ain't on magazine front-covers, it ain't nothin', bruv).
Of course, I won't hold it agaist small-time peeps who are trying to get a foothold of some kind for participating in putting out test Betas. However, I do think that it would help them grow as developers if they were to gain experience creating polished experiences. In the end though, I still hate the idea. Call it a double-standard, but I call it giving a bit of leeway due to circumstances; big-timers, or even good-sized studios, have NO excuses for shipping packaged Betas, much less doing free beta-testing.
One company who I have been excited about for a while is Hyperkin. In case you've missed me posting about their RetroN 5 (retro game console that plays 9 different carts), I'd like to mention that they've had many delays because Hyperkin feels as if they'd like to get everything right with this console. They do not wish to put out a console that requires a shit load of firmware updates (way too fucking familiar to me; not even Nintendo is immune to this, much less Sony in their PSP days). It was a statement released by Hyperkin on their Facebook and website not too long after CES 2014 announcing their more-than-tentative release date in May. Huh. A sad day when that kind of diligence in gaming is more rare than ever.
Anyway, long-winded post aside, I'd like to hear some thoughts on the matter.
The first of which is what I like to call a "packaged Beta." Adding that connotation would imply that a game in its Beta stage has been given the thumbs-up to be shipped out. Well, that's exactly what I'm shooting for. Not gonna run down the list of what I consider a packaged Beta, but I will clarify some of the characteristics of what I consider amount to such:
-a general lack of polish
-general oversights that could be considered "bonehead mistakes."
-the majority of gameplay features just generally feel like they're "good enough," like they could be better
-whenever a game either requires a great deal of firmware updates to be more playable, or the main purpose of firmware updates are to actually improve the core game
-various poorly-designed aspects of the game
-plenty of opportunities that allow for user exploits
-a significant number of bugs
-the bugs don't even have to be game-breaking; a good number of bugs can and do snowball
-game-breaking bugs included
-whenever bugs/glitches in a game are a normal thing
Of course, it's a little more nuanced than a meager list, but you get the point. Just because there's a bug or two doesn't mean the game's incomplete; sometimes, shit happens to skirt by the development process. However, things that "skirt by" shouldn't include poorly-executed gameplay settings/features and enough bugs to choke a large animal.
So why bring this up now? Well, I've seen the number of packaged Beta games actually increase over the last console generation, and now with the Twins adopting x86 architecture and the Wii U getting haphazard ports, I'm paranoid of an increase in packaged Betas. Hell, there's already some companies that have made selling packaged Betas their MO, such as everyone's favorite company, EA. Even worse is that not only will people actively defend companies such as EA and Bethesda on account of them "making good shit" (debatable on both accounts) and being big-time developers/publishers, but standards have certainly been lowered to tolerate purchasing these packaged Betas. "As long as the gameplay's fun, broseph!" Well, you gotta set the bar SOMEWHERE, son!
And that's the thing; the bar HAS been set. It's just that developers are trying their hardest to barely meet it.
Another kind of Beta I'd like to mention are glorified test Betas. Y'know, the ones that are free to play/download and you just tell the developer whenever you have a problem? Yeah. I do indeed have a major issue with those, the biggest of which is that the beta test process rather pales in comparison when opposed to the proper way to do it (which involves actually hiring people to do the shit).
Wanna know the major difference? When you've given someone an obligation to actually do a thorough job, they're more likely to do a thorough job (mind-blowing, I know). When you throw a test beta out into the wild, anyone and everyone who participates in it have ZERO obligations to even play it. They're not even required to actually report the damn bugs. Even if you give a ticket that can be renewed after each report, you're only playing at a constant back-scratch game, and one can simply not put up with your bullshit and back out of the whole ordeal. Paying someone to sink hundreds, if not thousands, of hours into assisting the development process is a sound investment, seeing as though polishing the game is the hard part as opposed to actually making it.
Lemme take it a step further; beta-testing doesn't even ensure a polished product will be produced. So why not improve the efficacy of the beta-testing process by hiring testers? Big-name companies tend to get away with the shit a lot more because apparently the entire gaming "community" has turned into British music fans (if it ain't on magazine front-covers, it ain't nothin', bruv).
Of course, I won't hold it agaist small-time peeps who are trying to get a foothold of some kind for participating in putting out test Betas. However, I do think that it would help them grow as developers if they were to gain experience creating polished experiences. In the end though, I still hate the idea. Call it a double-standard, but I call it giving a bit of leeway due to circumstances; big-timers, or even good-sized studios, have NO excuses for shipping packaged Betas, much less doing free beta-testing.
One company who I have been excited about for a while is Hyperkin. In case you've missed me posting about their RetroN 5 (retro game console that plays 9 different carts), I'd like to mention that they've had many delays because Hyperkin feels as if they'd like to get everything right with this console. They do not wish to put out a console that requires a shit load of firmware updates (way too fucking familiar to me; not even Nintendo is immune to this, much less Sony in their PSP days). It was a statement released by Hyperkin on their Facebook and website not too long after CES 2014 announcing their more-than-tentative release date in May. Huh. A sad day when that kind of diligence in gaming is more rare than ever.
Anyway, long-winded post aside, I'd like to hear some thoughts on the matter.