How about opening the beta?

bplotkin · 10-14-2003, 06:26 AM

I understand the reasons for the latest delay. Why not open the beta--make it an open beta--so at least those of us who are dying to play can help in the bugtesting? Throw us a bone, those of us who applied to be in the beta and weren't selected?

Jim Trunzo · 10-14-2003, 10:21 AM

That's not up to me but I'll bring it up to those in charge of play-testing and let you know.

PittPanther · 10-14-2003, 05:12 PM

This is actually a very good idea. Everyone is pacified, the development team gets their money, impatient gamers get to go at it with the game, and bugs are squashed.

It worked for Galactic Civilizations, which I might add is still going strong.

Bee · 10-14-2003, 09:34 PM

GalCiv did a very nice job of open beta testing. I usually don't think it's a good idea, but it might not be a bad idea for this game because of all the delays that have happened (unless the game is VERY close to release).

PittPanther · 10-14-2003, 09:55 PM

I wonder which lucky bastards from the board were chosen to test this game?

I'd wager that Ucclark is one of them, he hasn't posted in awhile. They must be keeping him underwraps.

Who else? Where's Mark been? hahahahahahha

NervousXtian · 10-15-2003, 12:08 PM

I think an open beta would be a bad idea here. GalCiv and other games of that type make sense to beta, because they can shut it down so easy, and they need to stress test things so much. Also, people are a lot more forgiving in games of that type then they would be with a game of this type.

I'd keep it closed until ready for release and then drop the REAL game on us.

JeffR · 10-15-2003, 02:40 PM

Yeah, I agree with keeping it closed. I think getting an open beta organized would only delay things at this point.

PittPanther · 10-15-2003, 04:06 PM

Open beta delaying things? I'm not sure I understand; an open beta is just that, a work in progress. As people play they offer up the bugs they find to squash and new features are added.

You don't shut down an open beta, because you have paying customers. It's just a fancy name for saying, we are going to release the game, you will pay for it, you will play it, you will identify bugs, we will squash them, you introduce new ideas, we see what can stick. . .

bplotkin · 10-15-2003, 04:23 PM

Exactly, Panther. All that has to be done to open the beta is to make the download available, let people know where and how to report bugs, and go! No work at all, and nothing that could delay release...but it could help in finding bugs.

JeffR · 10-15-2003, 04:24 PM

Ah, by "open beta" I thought you meant allowing anyone who was interested to test a pre-release version for free. That'd take time to organize and also requiring "crippling" the version that's available for testing so people had incentive to pay money for the finale version.

There might still be business issues with asking people to pay for a beta version, though, particularly regarding OOTP's contract with ViaTech.

bplotkin · 10-15-2003, 04:31 PM

No, they wouldn't have to pay for the beta version--that's the point of an open beta. Like I said earlier, they just download the game, playtest, and report. All you'd have to do is make the beta available for download, and let people know how/where to report bugs.

Based on experience with other games, I don't think anyone would be less likely to purchase the game if they had downloaded a beta for playtest purposes.

couriers · 10-15-2003, 05:00 PM

If only open betas were really that easy. Unfortunately there would be a lot more involved in the entire process than you have included. History shows that only a percentage of beta testers move on to become paying customers. There would most certainly need to be safeguards in place to protect the developers from losing their product to someone that would not be willing to pay for it after the testing is completed.

Also, anyone that thinks 4x Space Simmers are more forgiving than Sports Simmers needs to spend a bit of time at the MOO3 boards. There is so much surrounding Space Sims, very similar to a good sports engine, that forgiveness doesn't come easy by those who take that genre seriously.

Lastly, a paid beta would be the way to go. Anyone that would be willing to pay for the sim once it is released should have no trouble paying for it now and then offering their insights while waiting for the patches to come. Especially if they are that impatient and can’t simply wait for the developers to do what they need to in order for the final release to become available. Bottom line is that if the developers needed more beta testers then they probably have a long list of names to choose from and anyone asking for a free open beta testing period is only thinking of themselves. The reason being is that if the game was released today and was purchased by someone who finds a bug then that someone will most likely post the bug on the board and the developers will more than likely release a patch down the road to fix the bug. What is the difference? In other words, just wait until they say it is ready.

PittPanther · 10-15-2003, 05:47 PM

Well, as far as Galactic Civ, was concerned, you did pay to beta, but you were guaranteed the final build on completion.

At least, that's what I seem to remember from last summer, it's been some time. (I've run the entire gambit of computer games, and am now back to playing CIVIII anyway, so go figure).

Bee · 10-15-2003, 07:30 PM

yep Pitt is right, GalCiv you paid upfront and got to beta test. At the end of the beta, you got the full game. I think one of the baseball sims did something similar (maybe Puresim?). If you don't want to pay to beta test, you don't have to beta test. It's an optional thing.

I think it's a decent idea, especially if there's a lot of work left before the release.

swampdragon · 10-15-2003, 08:05 PM

I would think a free beta would be a non-starter with the deveopment team. I've participated in a lot of paid betas lately. Of course, the game developer didn't put that warning on the box.

I see nothing wrong with a paid beta, and I'd cheerfully pay, but I believe it's only appropriate when the remaining bugs are fairly minor ones. Frequent CTD's, for example, should be squashed before any kind of release. Then there's the infamous Pool of Radiance II, the initial version of which wiped your hard drive when you tried to uninstall it. That wasn't a beta, it was the $49.95 version.

NervousXtian · 10-16-2003, 06:29 AM

Some of you seem to have no idea of how or what a "beta test" really is.

Making an Open Beta would only delay the game at this point. One big factor being the whole programming in a crippling method/copy protection to stop people from just getting the beta and never buying the game.

It's not just a switch you flick on. You can't compare GalCiv to TBCB. Totally different games and genres. If they needed more beta testers they would of just let more in, they dind't so they seem to think they have enough, which I'm prone to believe at this point. Getting quality beta testers is not an easy thing, because you've got to find the kind of person who is going to work over your product in ways unimaginable, and actually have the ability to duplicate what they did, and report clearly what was happening. Not easy in any regard.

Also keep in mind this isn't a project backed by the big $$$ dev's like Microsoft, EA, or THQ. This is a small (sorry Jim) project from a small group of people. They're looking to sell in the thousands not the millions.

I'll take Jim's word being that we'll be happy upon release. So until that point I'll wait.

Bee · 10-16-2003, 07:44 AM

I agree there could be a delay if they were to "open" the beta, which is why I said I wouldn't do it if they are close to release. I think you are missing the point though of this type of open beta. It's been used in the past by small companies to generate revenue before the release. GalCiv isn't the only game that's done this. Like I said there's a baseball text sim that did something very similar. I also remember an CRPG that did this as well about a year and half ago (a one man operation). You end up with a couple advantages to doing this.

1. You get revenue up front. This can be huge (especially if a game has been delayed for more than a year and still isn't out).

2. You get to test the game on multiple systems. This can go a long way to eliminate some compatibility issues that always seems to come out on release.

3. You end up with a reduction in the "bitterness" of the fan base about long delays. By allowing the hardcore fans a chance to play the game in beta, they are usually more understanding that the game actually isn't ready for release. You basically eliminate the whining that happens with those who shout "release the game and patch it later".

There's also a couple disadvantages. The biggest one is the risk of negative word of mouth. Someone complains on another message board that the game is crap before it's finished is never a good thing.

The piracy issue to me is a moot point. Yes, someone who buys the game in an open beta can pirate the game. They can do the same thing when it's released. The developer just has to have the copy protection in place before an open beta begins.

So basically, this type of open beta isn't designed to just increase the size of the beta team. It's designed to do a lot more than that. This game would have been a great candidate IMO for an open beta, but from what Jim has said I think it's far too close to release to really work at this point.

PittPanther · 10-16-2003, 04:04 PM

Gal Civ orignated from a very small developer, it didn't get picked up by Strategy First until it gathered steam as I recall.

Plus if you had read any of the other posts, Nervous Nelly, you would see that in an open beta, you, the customer, pay up front, wiping out your first point, your second point, and your third point.

I agree with the guy in front of me, the one big disadvantage would be word of mouth. Hey this game sucks, don't buy it! Well, that would definately hamper things.

As far as pirating goes, what's the difference? You will have already paid your money. If you were going to pirate during an "open beta" then you would pirate after as well, it's really all the same to me.

Sure there are some negatives here, but I don't see any of the ones I'm thinking about in most of the posts here.

If Jim and crew don't want to do it, it's fine, and if you think it's a bad idea, well that's fine too. But please don't tell me how an open beta test would delay anything (at least not in the sence of the open beta of Gal Civ was handled), it only helped development, and that game evolved into one of the better space sims out there because of player input.

NervousXtian · 10-16-2003, 09:10 PM

You seem to forget the point of what a beta is meant to do. It IS NOT A DEMO. It is a pre-release copy of the game sent out to testers to, get this, test. It's more work than play.

The MMORPG of late have confused everyone on how normal beta's work. Most games that don't require stress testing or that are massively vast in the way's that MMORPG are don't go through any type of "open beta".

Bee · 10-16-2003, 09:41 PM

No one said anything about a demo, not sure where you're getting that image from, especially after several people have explained that this type of "open beta" are for people who actually pay for the game upfront (pre-order if you prefer).

As far as testing games, in general, the more beta testers you have, the more bugs you find. Pretty simple concept really. Sure there's always people that just want to "play" the game and not test it. You have that with small beta test teams as well. You still would have your "normal" beta testing as well. This is just another layer.

Not sure where you got the MMORPG thing either. I've never played one so I don't know what they do for beta testing or anything like that. I do know that open beta tests, while not common, aren't unheard of either. Hell, there's a large number of shareware games that do basically an open beta.

I think the whole conversation is moot because based on Jim's comments I expect the game to be released VERY soon, but that doesn't invalidate the process that Pitt recommended. It's a proven method of opening up the beta testing that's been used by other small developers with success. It provides financing for the company, silences many of the pissing matches (like this one

) that happens waiting for a release and ends up testing the game on a much wider cross-section of computer configurations than a normal beta.

10-14-2003, 06:26 AM	#1
bplotkin Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 220 Infractions: 0/3 (4)	How about opening the beta? I understand the reasons for the latest delay. Why not open the beta--make it an open beta--so at least those of us who are dying to play can help in the bugtesting? Throw us a bone, those of us who applied to be in the beta and weren't selected?

10-14-2003, 05:12 PM	#3
PittPanther All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 1,235	This is actually a very good idea. Everyone is pacified, the development team gets their money, impatient gamers get to go at it with the game, and bugs are squashed. It worked for Galactic Civilizations, which I might add is still going strong. __________________ Commitment Teamwork Pride Hail to Pitt!

10-14-2003, 09:55 PM	#5
PittPanther All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 1,235	I wonder which lucky bastards from the board were chosen to test this game? I'd wager that Ucclark is one of them, he hasn't posted in awhile. They must be keeping him underwraps. Who else? Where's Mark been? hahahahahahha __________________ Commitment Teamwork Pride Hail to Pitt!

10-15-2003, 12:08 PM	#6
NervousXtian Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Portland Posts: 53	I think an open beta would be a bad idea here. GalCiv and other games of that type make sense to beta, because they can shut it down so easy, and they need to stress test things so much. Also, people are a lot more forgiving in games of that type then they would be with a game of this type. I'd keep it closed until ready for release and then drop the REAL game on us. __________________ No Sig.

10-15-2003, 04:06 PM	#8
PittPanther All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 1,235	Open beta delaying things? I'm not sure I understand; an open beta is just that, a work in progress. As people play they offer up the bugs they find to squash and new features are added. You don't shut down an open beta, because you have paying customers. It's just a fancy name for saying, we are going to release the game, you will pay for it, you will play it, you will identify bugs, we will squash them, you introduce new ideas, we see what can stick. . . __________________ Commitment Teamwork Pride Hail to Pitt!

10-14-2003, 10:21 AM	#2
Jim Trunzo OOTP Developments Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leechburg, PA Posts: 739	That's not up to me but I'll bring it up to those in charge of play-testing and let you know.

10-14-2003, 09:34 PM	#4
Bee Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 147	GalCiv did a very nice job of open beta testing. I usually don't think it's a good idea, but it might not be a bad idea for this game because of all the delays that have happened (unless the game is VERY close to release).

10-15-2003, 02:40 PM	#7
JeffR FHM Producer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Kelowna, BC Posts: 17,434	Yeah, I agree with keeping it closed. I think getting an open beta organized would only delay things at this point.

10-15-2003, 04:23 PM	#9
bplotkin Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 220 Infractions: 0/3 (4)	Exactly, Panther. All that has to be done to open the beta is to make the download available, let people know where and how to report bugs, and go! No work at all, and nothing that could delay release...but it could help in finding bugs.

10-15-2003, 04:24 PM	#10
JeffR FHM Producer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Kelowna, BC Posts: 17,434	Ah, by "open beta" I thought you meant allowing anyone who was interested to test a pre-release version for free. That'd take time to organize and also requiring "crippling" the version that's available for testing so people had incentive to pay money for the finale version. There might still be business issues with asking people to pay for a beta version, though, particularly regarding OOTP's contract with ViaTech.

10-15-2003, 04:31 PM	#11
bplotkin Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 220 Infractions: 0/3 (4)	No, they wouldn't have to pay for the beta version--that's the point of an open beta. Like I said earlier, they just download the game, playtest, and report. All you'd have to do is make the beta available for download, and let people know how/where to report bugs. Based on experience with other games, I don't think anyone would be less likely to purchase the game if they had downloaded a beta for playtest purposes.

10-15-2003, 05:00 PM	#12
couriers All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Fort Lauderdale Fla Posts: 932	If only open betas were really that easy. Unfortunately there would be a lot more involved in the entire process than you have included. History shows that only a percentage of beta testers move on to become paying customers. There would most certainly need to be safeguards in place to protect the developers from losing their product to someone that would not be willing to pay for it after the testing is completed. Also, anyone that thinks 4x Space Simmers are more forgiving than Sports Simmers needs to spend a bit of time at the MOO3 boards. There is so much surrounding Space Sims, very similar to a good sports engine, that forgiveness doesn't come easy by those who take that genre seriously. Lastly, a paid beta would be the way to go. Anyone that would be willing to pay for the sim once it is released should have no trouble paying for it now and then offering their insights while waiting for the patches to come. Especially if they are that impatient and can’t simply wait for the developers to do what they need to in order for the final release to become available. Bottom line is that if the developers needed more beta testers then they probably have a long list of names to choose from and anyone asking for a free open beta testing period is only thinking of themselves. The reason being is that if the game was released today and was purchased by someone who finds a bug then that someone will most likely post the bug on the board and the developers will more than likely release a patch down the road to fix the bug. What is the difference? In other words, just wait until they say it is ready.

10-15-2003, 05:47 PM	#13
PittPanther All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 1,235	Well, as far as Galactic Civ, was concerned, you did pay to beta, but you were guaranteed the final build on completion. At least, that's what I seem to remember from last summer, it's been some time. (I've run the entire gambit of computer games, and am now back to playing CIVIII anyway, so go figure). __________________ Commitment Teamwork Pride Hail to Pitt!

10-15-2003, 07:30 PM	#14
Bee Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 147	yep Pitt is right, GalCiv you paid upfront and got to beta test. At the end of the beta, you got the full game. I think one of the baseball sims did something similar (maybe Puresim?). If you don't want to pay to beta test, you don't have to beta test. It's an optional thing. I think it's a decent idea, especially if there's a lot of work left before the release.

10-15-2003, 08:05 PM	#15
swampdragon Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Lonely Mountain Posts: 2,506	I would think a free beta would be a non-starter with the deveopment team. I've participated in a lot of paid betas lately. Of course, the game developer didn't put that warning on the box. I see nothing wrong with a paid beta, and I'd cheerfully pay, but I believe it's only appropriate when the remaining bugs are fairly minor ones. Frequent CTD's, for example, should be squashed before any kind of release. Then there's the infamous Pool of Radiance II, the initial version of which wiped your hard drive when you tried to uninstall it. That wasn't a beta, it was the $49.95 version.

10-16-2003, 06:29 AM	#16
NervousXtian Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Portland Posts: 53	Some of you seem to have no idea of how or what a "beta test" really is. Making an Open Beta would only delay the game at this point. One big factor being the whole programming in a crippling method/copy protection to stop people from just getting the beta and never buying the game. It's not just a switch you flick on. You can't compare GalCiv to TBCB. Totally different games and genres. If they needed more beta testers they would of just let more in, they dind't so they seem to think they have enough, which I'm prone to believe at this point. Getting quality beta testers is not an easy thing, because you've got to find the kind of person who is going to work over your product in ways unimaginable, and actually have the ability to duplicate what they did, and report clearly what was happening. Not easy in any regard. Also keep in mind this isn't a project backed by the big $$$ dev's like Microsoft, EA, or THQ. This is a small (sorry Jim) project from a small group of people. They're looking to sell in the thousands not the millions. I'll take Jim's word being that we'll be happy upon release. So until that point I'll wait. __________________ No Sig.

10-16-2003, 07:44 AM	#17
Bee Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 147	I agree there could be a delay if they were to "open" the beta, which is why I said I wouldn't do it if they are close to release. I think you are missing the point though of this type of open beta. It's been used in the past by small companies to generate revenue before the release. GalCiv isn't the only game that's done this. Like I said there's a baseball text sim that did something very similar. I also remember an CRPG that did this as well about a year and half ago (a one man operation). You end up with a couple advantages to doing this. 1. You get revenue up front. This can be huge (especially if a game has been delayed for more than a year and still isn't out). 2. You get to test the game on multiple systems. This can go a long way to eliminate some compatibility issues that always seems to come out on release. 3. You end up with a reduction in the "bitterness" of the fan base about long delays. By allowing the hardcore fans a chance to play the game in beta, they are usually more understanding that the game actually isn't ready for release. You basically eliminate the whining that happens with those who shout "release the game and patch it later". There's also a couple disadvantages. The biggest one is the risk of negative word of mouth. Someone complains on another message board that the game is crap before it's finished is never a good thing. The piracy issue to me is a moot point. Yes, someone who buys the game in an open beta can pirate the game. They can do the same thing when it's released. The developer just has to have the copy protection in place before an open beta begins. So basically, this type of open beta isn't designed to just increase the size of the beta team. It's designed to do a lot more than that. This game would have been a great candidate IMO for an open beta, but from what Jim has said I think it's far too close to release to really work at this point.

10-16-2003, 04:04 PM	#18
PittPanther All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 1,235	Gal Civ orignated from a very small developer, it didn't get picked up by Strategy First until it gathered steam as I recall. Plus if you had read any of the other posts, Nervous Nelly, you would see that in an open beta, you, the customer, pay up front, wiping out your first point, your second point, and your third point. I agree with the guy in front of me, the one big disadvantage would be word of mouth. Hey this game sucks, don't buy it! Well, that would definately hamper things. As far as pirating goes, what's the difference? You will have already paid your money. If you were going to pirate during an "open beta" then you would pirate after as well, it's really all the same to me. Sure there are some negatives here, but I don't see any of the ones I'm thinking about in most of the posts here. If Jim and crew don't want to do it, it's fine, and if you think it's a bad idea, well that's fine too. But please don't tell me how an open beta test would delay anything (at least not in the sence of the open beta of Gal Civ was handled), it only helped development, and that game evolved into one of the better space sims out there because of player input. __________________ Commitment Teamwork Pride Hail to Pitt! Last edited by PittPanther; 10-16-2003 at 04:11 PM.

10-16-2003, 09:10 PM	#19
NervousXtian Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Portland Posts: 53	You seem to forget the point of what a beta is meant to do. It IS NOT A DEMO. It is a pre-release copy of the game sent out to testers to, get this, test. It's more work than play. The MMORPG of late have confused everyone on how normal beta's work. Most games that don't require stress testing or that are massively vast in the way's that MMORPG are don't go through any type of "open beta". __________________ No Sig.

10-16-2003, 09:41 PM	#20
Bee Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 147	No one said anything about a demo, not sure where you're getting that image from, especially after several people have explained that this type of "open beta" are for people who actually pay for the game upfront (pre-order if you prefer). As far as testing games, in general, the more beta testers you have, the more bugs you find. Pretty simple concept really. Sure there's always people that just want to "play" the game and not test it. You have that with small beta test teams as well. You still would have your "normal" beta testing as well. This is just another layer. Not sure where you got the MMORPG thing either. I've never played one so I don't know what they do for beta testing or anything like that. I do know that open beta tests, while not common, aren't unheard of either. Hell, there's a large number of shareware games that do basically an open beta. I think the whole conversation is moot because based on Jim's comments I expect the game to be released VERY soon, but that doesn't invalidate the process that Pitt recommended. It's a proven method of opening up the beta testing that's been used by other small developers with success. It provides financing for the company, silences many of the pissing matches (like this one ) that happens waiting for a release and ends up testing the game on a much wider cross-section of computer configurations than a normal beta.