Game Betas Should Be an Industry Standard

First Castle Crashers. Then Gears of War 2. And now Battlefield 1943.

The time to demand betas is upon us, my gamer friends. As consumers of digital entertainment, we have a right to demand quality for every product we purchase with our hard-earned dollars. Lately it seems as though the exchange has been very one-sided - we gamers plop down our cash and then sit and wait until all the "unexpected issues" are worked out on the developers side.

And we wait. And wait. And wait.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Automat3385d ago

seems like the 360 could use some betas......

TheChosenWon3385d ago

This isn't a flamewar article in the least.

The core of this problem has nothing to do with console. It's at the developer level.

Keep your flamebait comments to yourself or hop on over to the Open Zone.

Automat3385d ago

did you read the article? was ths ps3 present? all he talks about is trouble with online on the 360... we all know that serious developers who don't want to disappoint their customers have betas-....

TheChosenWon3385d ago (Edited 3385d ago )

I still fail to see your point.

PSN was mentioned in the article as actually having been a smooth release for BF1943... why was it smooth for PSN and not XBL? Who knows - but general consensus is that it's because the XBL version of 1943 was much more popular than the PSN version, and the server balancing wasn't allocated properly - thus you wouldn't see "server bandwidth issues" on PSN.

But that wasn't the point of the article, isn't not PSN vs. XBL vs. PC. It's an attempt to hold developers accountable for what they release.

The other games cited in the article are popular issues within the XBL community - issues which aren't because of XBL itself, but instead were caused by poor design decisions by the developers (and could easily have occurred on PSN/PC if they weren't 360 exclusives). This isn't to say that PC/PSN haven't had shobby multiplayer games. To say one platform provides the perfect experience is asinine - noone can argue that without coming across as a delusional buffoon.

But like I said, this isn't a console issue. The bandwidth problem with BF1943 (as well as EA's existing account issue) would have been figured out sooner if there was a beta.

Activision's had very few problems with CoD: [email protected] or MW1 on either XBL, PSN, or PC. But they had betas that were able to deal with a myriad of issues before full release.

Noone's immune to the problem of shoddy software being released to the paying general public.

>>we all know that serious developers who don't want to disappoint their customers have betas<<

That's such a loaded statement I don't even know where to begin.
A) how do we classify "serious developers"? those who release betas? Please. This is a multi-billion dollar industry, I'm pretty sure most developers are "serious".
B) there are always going to be disappointed people, no matter what. This can't/should't dictate whether or not a beta/demo is released before a game's release, if not for the sole purpose of full-on product testing.
C) Change "We all know" to "I believe", since I don't agree with you so technically "we all know" is incorrect. ;)

In summary: The whole purpose of the beta is to limit any surprises, like BF1943's epic fail on XBL. There's no longer any excuse for developers to not offer them.