When ever a game is running an Alpha/Beta and there is discussion of it there is always the comment of "It's only an Alpha/Beta and can get changed before released." I don't partake in many Alpha/Beta's so I want to know do games generally improve in to time to release and how often are these issues resolved in post-launch (not counting Day1) patches?
Does Alpha/Beta status actually matter.
- Thread starter thedragon232
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Honestly, it's a lot like playing day 1, lol. Yes, there are more bugs. And some things get "fixed" that were kind of great.
Well, a lot of games claim to let you partake in such, but a lot of them are lying, and its really just a big demo.
But a true alpha a lot can change, but a true alpha will be far more bare-bones.
A beta is less likely to change, and is more for fixing problems and oversights. Not to say major changes cannot occur, but its really for bug testing and making sure things go as planned.
But a true alpha a lot can change, but a true alpha will be far more bare-bones.
A beta is less likely to change, and is more for fixing problems and oversights. Not to say major changes cannot occur, but its really for bug testing and making sure things go as planned.
Yes. I would personally never play those, but it is good to have some enthusiastic testers to do it for me.
Who am I to stop those people from doing it in behalf of all those who will play in the future? Win-win.
Who am I to stop those people from doing it in behalf of all those who will play in the future? Win-win.
You can usually tell by the time-frame on it whether its an actual alpha/beta or a glorified demo (or at best a stress test for servers).
The Destiny Alpha/Beta was 3 months before it came out, which is way too short a window, for instance. The current Titanfall 2 "Pre-Alpha" for the game releasing in October is also obviously a false status.
Conversely, there's other games that have their betas a year or more before release, which are truer to form.
Then you have Early Access, which is just an excuse to sell a game with no responsibility to make sure its playable, stable, or actually complete for however long you want.
The Destiny Alpha/Beta was 3 months before it came out, which is way too short a window, for instance. The current Titanfall 2 "Pre-Alpha" for the game releasing in October is also obviously a false status.
Conversely, there's other games that have their betas a year or more before release, which are truer to form.
Then you have Early Access, which is just an excuse to sell a game with no responsibility to make sure its playable, stable, or actually complete for however long you want.
Depends on the developer and what they're using alpha/beta status for.
Some just wants to check if the servers will hold out. Other wants to check the performance and bugs, some will even want to see if people like the gameplay or see if it's well balanced and some just relese demos and call them beta.
Some just wants to check if the servers will hold out. Other wants to check the performance and bugs, some will even want to see if people like the gameplay or see if it's well balanced and some just relese demos and call them beta.
I've played two games in Alpha that I'm glad to have played, and a few others I could have lived without. I think it's something you need to get a sense for yourself, and your own desires and tolerances.
A real alpha though, is rough; missing textures, mechanics missing, basically a concept car with switches that do nothing. They usually also have "ALPHA" watermarked on them these days, so that any screenshots taken emphasize the fact that this is not a final product.
In general, the less a game relies on high fidelity graphics coupled with quick action, the more it can be decent in alpha. I would HATE to play a Final Fantasy game in Alpha though, what would be the point? A survival game that you wanted to have some part in shaping the development of? That makes sense.
A real alpha though, is rough; missing textures, mechanics missing, basically a concept car with switches that do nothing. They usually also have "ALPHA" watermarked on them these days, so that any screenshots taken emphasize the fact that this is not a final product.
In general, the less a game relies on high fidelity graphics coupled with quick action, the more it can be decent in alpha. I would HATE to play a Final Fantasy game in Alpha though, what would be the point? A survival game that you wanted to have some part in shaping the development of? That makes sense.
In game development, the terms Alpha and Beta are not applied concisely across all developers, that it probably should be is another argument entirely.
An Alpha build is supposed to be a game heavily in development, with systems, content, and other features incomplete. These very likely will change over the course of development and the final product will be different in most cases, particularly for more complex games.
A Beta build is a game that is deemed functionally complete and is now going through the process of refinement, this is not only bug fixing, but also fine tweaking of assets and systems, patching balance issues, and lots of other details that try to look at the game as a whole and see if the sum of it's parts works feasibly. Again, the chances of the product changing much in this time frame has a lot to do with complexity and the amount of effort gone into Beta Testing,
In some cases however you will find games where a Beta build is really closer to an Alpha build as it misses many key systems and/or game sections. There are also sometimes Alpha builds that are very stable, and considered closer to Beta status, but it's ultimately up to the dev to decide which designation the game gets.
An Alpha build is supposed to be a game heavily in development, with systems, content, and other features incomplete. These very likely will change over the course of development and the final product will be different in most cases, particularly for more complex games.
A Beta build is a game that is deemed functionally complete and is now going through the process of refinement, this is not only bug fixing, but also fine tweaking of assets and systems, patching balance issues, and lots of other details that try to look at the game as a whole and see if the sum of it's parts works feasibly. Again, the chances of the product changing much in this time frame has a lot to do with complexity and the amount of effort gone into Beta Testing,
In some cases however you will find games where a Beta build is really closer to an Alpha build as it misses many key systems and/or game sections. There are also sometimes Alpha builds that are very stable, and considered closer to Beta status, but it's ultimately up to the dev to decide which designation the game gets.
You know they actually use old builds of the games for these sorts of tests, right? It's not like they decide, "Hey. Let's take our current build and dump it onto the public as a 'beta' and let them test it for us." This is the sort of thing they plan months in advance and take whatever the most stable build they had at that early stage and 'flesh it out' to make it stable enough for public testing. The core build continues development along side the 'beta'.Seth Carter said:
This is a misconception and can often lead to fewer changes (and longer development cycles) in the long run.
chrissx2 said:
These are the correct answers to your questions, OP.aozgolo said:
Alpha: "Okay, it works, but we're not exactly done yet."thedragon232 said:
Beta: "It's technically done, but we're ironing out all the kinks with the testers still."
Seems a fair system.
Honestly I think the terms has become somewhat meaningless with Beta's often being nothing more then glorified Demo's, or them having fully implemented cash shops.
I was going to comment about how the problems can be solved, and how first the developers may need to know they exist (otherwise they might never solve them). However it's mere speculation, as I have never participated in alphas, betas or Early Access.