The inconvenient truths behind betas

GamesRadar: Enjoying advertising Halo: Reach for Microsoft? What's that you say? You're just playing it? You're an intelligent, free-thinking, anti-establishment individual, and there's no way you'd help out a global mega-corporation with its marketing?

Well if you're playing the Reach beta, or any other in fact, that's exactly what you're doing. And it's far from the only way you're playing into the industry's hands. Want to know how else you're helping it do all the things you probably moan about on a day-to-day basis? Here we go...

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
edgeofblade2986d ago

Look, I have no problem with betas, or even "betas". But when it comes to situations like Halo Reach, don't fool yourself into thinking you are doing anything more than playing a paid, time-limited demo.

dgroundwater2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

That is mostly true. But there is real tweaking going on. If you were online in the beta on day one you would know the matchmaking disaster they had. This beta has made real improvements to weapon balancing and gamemode design as well. Otherwise gamers would be dealing with it on launch day for 60-70 bucks.

Baka-akaB2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

That's half a myth and half a misconception .

Lousy studios are lousy , beta or not .
Those things that you can witness being fixed would be fixed anyway internally , given it's bungie that's involved .

Having a public beta is a better alternative all around .... but hardly needed .
Except for two genres that actually always used it and maybe even launched the trend : obviously mmos with the vast amount of work needed on both the games and servers , and fighting games (with the far more discreet but as needed and ever present loketest/beta in arcades) .

The rest of the games , especially fps , needed it far less . Current fps arent always more demanding , except in graphics . Most concept are true and tried , and we see very well fps with beta being full of obvious bugs and glitches , as well as stuff like mw2 done with a beta .

Again it's nice , but hardly as important as many players believes . Most of their input are ignored out of designs choices , clash with the dev's vision , or lack and time and funding .
It is a marketing schemes , usually free , and lately tied down to game sales , like with reach .

After all , looking back , the most popular games , always had server issues at launch , even with beta server tests .

CRAIG6672986d ago

This article sucks,i mean the guy who wrote this is a complete patronising helmet!!! amen!

Double Toasted2986d ago

He forgot to mention that we'll all be running into ads when we click his link.

Inside_out2986d ago

Yeah, he's not looking for hits...not at all...forget the fact that Halo is easily one of the best and solid multi-player time betas give the company alot of info...he talks like it's cheap to run a beta...." Don't get me wrong, we like Reach " at the end of a huge rant....Alot of hate for M$ this year....Look at Rockstar moving there game up from April to the same day AW releases....M$ needs to take a good long look at this....

Chaotic_Lament2986d ago

I'm not complaining. If it allows me to play a game earlier then so be it.

maxcer2985d ago

Yes, play the game and make good bug reports on it so it can be a better experience when the game ships. unless the developer has no way for you to submit problems, its a glorified demo.

Redempteur2986d ago

Beta are usefull ..

MAG without Betas would NOT be the MAG of now ...

XsteveJ2985d ago

How is a beta not a win-win for everyone involved?

The consumer gets their hands on a product they really want to play before launch, the developer gets much needed feedback on network/gameplay issues, and the publisher gets the free viral advertising that the author talked about.

Nobody is forcing anybody to participate in a beta. The sense of entitlement in consumers is amazing...

Show all comments (11)