So, you'd do anything to be on the Civ 3 alpha/beta team, eh? Consider...

[yin26]

Another interesting article people here might find enlightening.

http://www.cgonline.com/features/010807-f1-f1.html

Just one sample is the following. To which category does Civ 3 belong?

Due to the ease of "patching" buggy games after they're released, many publishers ignore final test reports to get the game out on time. "Unfortunately, we all know this happens," says Terminal Reality's Russell, who doesn't feel developers or publishers knowingly want to put a buggy program out. "In some cases it is from a lack of proper testing, other times it could be from external pressures placed upon the publisher or developer."

And here's that quote again from Jeff Morris:

An open public beta was originally planned, but that window I was describing never really opened. A closed public beta wasn't an option since don't they involve a large enough 'sample' for compatibility testing and requires immense manpower to manage.

So, if you guessed BOTH "lack of proper testing" AND "external pressures," you appear to be the winner!

[yin26]

YIN'S DISCLAIMER: Of course, I firmly believe that Firaxis' small group will no doubt find all the bugs that matter and produce gameplay that will need very little feedback from us. Sure, sounds impossible, but darn it if I'm not a believer!

( )

[Rhysie]

A non-public beta test does not equal 'a lack of proper testing' - Why does it have to be a public test to be a proper test? As has already been stated by Firaxis the main benefits of a public beta are compatability issues, which are not bugs, they are compatability issues.

I also think the quoted article is a little bit stupid, as if the cause is lack of testing then they aren't _knowingly_ putting out a buggy program - The point is if they don't test properly they _don't know_ that it's buggy.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by yin26
YIN'S DISCLAIMER: Of course, I firmly believe that Firaxis' small group will no doubt find all the bugs that matter and produce gameplay that will need very little feedback from us. Sure, sounds impossible, but darn it if I'm not a believer!
( )

Sid, if YOU are so optimistic, who are we to grumble?

[yin26]

As has already been stated by Firaxis the main benefits of a public beta are compatability issues, which are not bugs, they are compatability issues.

They say it, you believe it. Simple? Of course ONE of the benefits of large or public beta is compatibility. What Jeff willingly is misleading you on here is the fact that a large of public beta is ALSO extremely valuable in helping balance the gameplay.

He has said, in effect, we think (or have to think because we have no more time left) that our primarily in-house staff (plus a handful of testers) can do all the playbalancing. He's wrong. He knows it. But he probably wasn't given any other choice, so he gives you the throw-away line about 'compatability testing' being the only thing lost.

Interestingly, however, you caught the lie in the above quote by noting:

I also think the quoted article is a little bit stupid, as if the cause is lack of testing then they aren't _knowingly_ putting out a buggy program - The point is if they don't test properly they _don't know_ that it's buggy.

I was hoping somebody would catch that, and you did! Nice work. However, I would change something a bit: "The point is if they don't test properly, they _SHOULD ASSUME!_ that it's buggy and far from optimized for solid gameplay."

The fact is they KNOW it's buggy to one degree or another but are just praying the patch work won't be too horrid. They also KNOW that the game likely won't have good gameplay until at least the first patch since the public will, in effect, be replacing the real beta testing that should have taken place before the game's release.

Civ 3 will be no different. We will be public beta testers. However, I accept this fact and will not resist it simply because I know that Firaxis will at least be listening to our suggestions. What I found particularly interesting is that some people (you, for instance) think Firaxis is meeting its testing obligations. And I also find it interesting to realize that even if we HAD tested with Firaxis, there's a good chance a lot of that feedback would have been ignored because of a release date.

Like I said, I don't mind paying to be a beta tester after the release as long as we get results.

[Wittlich]

Yin has just summed it up in a nutshell -

I too don't mind being a "beta tester" (for lack of a better term) after I buy the game - as long as the "bugs" which we find are "properly" addressed by Firaxis.

I just have this bad taste in my mouth after the treatment we (Apolyton as a whole) received from Activision over CTP2 - once bitten, twice shy.

However, I need to stress that IN NO WAY do I equate Firaxis as being on the same level as Activision!

[Rhysie]

Originally posted by yin26

What I found particularly interesting is that some people (you, for instance) think Firaxis is meeting its testing obligations.

Yep, I do, because I don't think they have any 'obligations'. They aren't a charity or government funded organisation, the only people they really have obligations to are their shareholders or owners - If we don't like what they do then we don't buy their games, so therefore it's not an obligation for them to please us, only a desirability (Both for us and them).

And they don't have an obligation to reward us for our loyalty either, in case someone wheels that out - I feel the opposite, we have more of a responsibility to reward them for the great games they have given us already (reward in the sense of giving them a chance to prove they can do it again and not assume the worst). But even that isn't an 'obligation', only a responsibility.

I would go so far as to say any money I have paid to them or previous civ teams is nowhere near as much as I think they deserve for the enjoyment those games have given me. (Though I wouldn't pay them extra out of the goodness of my heart because I'm tight). Therefore it's me in debt to them, not the other way around.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by yin26
What I found particularly interesting is that some people (you, for instance) think Firaxis is meeting its testing obligations.

what obligations are these? i dont recall firaxis pledging to have a public beta test. what firaxis has promised is a great game with as little bugs as possible. since the game is not out i dont see how you can make safe judgements on that....

[yin26]

they really have obligations to are their shareholders or owners

Agreed. And I assume by that you mean to make them money. How is that money made? By making games people actually want to buy. How do you manage that? Well, a smart company realizes the importance of ...yep... testing their software thoroughly to try to avoid needing months of patching. Because reputations DO matter.

It so happens that Firaxis has saved its reputation by excellent service through patching after release. Now, I might not like having to jump through all those hoops, but at least they deliver eventually. Otherwise, they'd be in massive trouble by now.

So, their obligations to their shareholders and owners mean, in effect, their obligations to make us happy enough to buy their games. NOT the other way around. The money, after all, comes from the bottom of the pyramid, not the top where shareholders and owners are sitting...though in actual practice, that might be awful hard to remember.

[yin26]

what firaxis has promised is a great game with as little bugs as possible.

Actually, I don't think ANY promises have been made. Vague hype, yes. But a proper promise? No. And that's fine. But the release of this game WILL reveal beyond a shadow of a doubt a game that could have been MUCH stronger in the gameplay department with a concerted beta effort (despite the fluff that a beta is mainly for compatability testing...sure, if that's all you use it for). How do I know? Do you want proof the sun will rise tomorrow, too?

But as I have said elsewhere, I will gladly pay my $50 to beta test Firaxis and give them feedback because I think they'll pay attention, which is another one of their 'obligations' if their goal is to keep selling lots of games.

[yin26]

I should clarify something here, too: Firaxis (as with most companies) is in many ways tied to the schedules determined by the top of that pyramid. I realize and understand this. I realize and understand the very people who hope to make the most money of these games are often the very ones doing everything to make the games bomb. I realize Firaxis itself would probably love nothing more than to "blue sky" the testing phase, but they are being forced to keep a release date.

So, when I say "Firaxis' obligations" I am saying that fully realizing that things like release dates might well have been forced on them in an unrealistic and dangerous fashion. Still, it's the rare company that puts a premium on testing even without imposed release dates. I suppose it's human tendency to become too blind and too tired to your own work to see it objectively.

That's why cooler heads should prevail...

[MarkG]

Originally posted by yin26
But the release of this game WILL reveal beyond a shadow of a doubt a game that could have been MUCH stronger in the gameplay department with a concerted beta effort

SO WHAT if it does? the issue is whether or not the game will be worth it's money. the rest is fluff....

Do you want proof the sun will rise tomorrow, too?

amazing comparison.....

[yin26]

amazing comparison

Ask common sense questions get common sense answers. If you want a better answer, ask a better question. Here's a good one: Given that Firaxis can't/won't do testing any more than they did with SMAC, how can you NOT assume that the problems will be similar, or worse, since they have added so many new elements to the game?

Common sense, Markos: They upped the complexity of the game without seemingly upping the testing effort. But will they listen to us as post-release public beta testers? I am sure they will. But we should call this effort what it is: Release and Patch.

Sadly, in the end, this may be the most efficient way to do it...*sigh*...I only wish we could look the beast square in the eyes.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by yin26
Here's a good one: Given that Firaxis can't/won't do testing any more than they did with SMAC, how can you NOT assume that the problems will be similar, or worse, since they have added so many new elements to the game?

given that the developers are different, i dont think i have enough data to compare the two situations....

[yin26]

Fair enough. Boy, this is gonna be an interesting release...