Only 25 Beta testers

[Nadexander]

This is some kind of joke right? Only 25 beta testers and theyre making a contest out of it? Most likely these people will have zero software testing experience and will mostly be fan-boys that are already salivating over the game. This is clearly a misguided PR gesture, rather than attempt to get real improvemnets in the game. QS's attitude must be that they dont want to make any real changes so theyre just gonna hand it out to a few lucky fans and claim that it was "publicly beta-tested".

P.S. I hope at least one of these betatesters will have the decency to put their copy on kazaa so that we can get a chance to give some _REAL_ feedback to QS gives us all the old hump'em and dump'em.

[ashbery]

With a month or 2 before release its only going to be bug-hunting anyway.

[SeanV]

I would think they would look at what people say about *why* they want to be a beta tester, and let that (and what kind of computer they have :-) influence their decision.
I mean, I somehow doubt that they will hand a copy over to someone who says "I really love this game and I want to be able to play it two months before everyone else does."

And even if most of those who do get picked don't have much, if any game testing experience I wouldn't think that would stop them from reporting bugs. In fact an inexperienced man (uh... tester) will probably report more bugs than someone with a little game testing time because the one with some game time may assume that this is a documented feature not a bug, whereas a neophite might even report game features as bugs. After all don't most experienced game testers work for companies? Or do they?

Note: I am not knocking experienced game testers or claiming that any old Joe off the street will be better than a good tester so don't kill me for something I didn't mean. )

[Imhotep]

Originally posted by Nadexander
This is some kind of joke right? Only 25 beta testers and theyre making a contest out of it?

Well, since this contest has been mentioned both on the official MOO 3 site (http://moo3.quicksilver.com/main.htm), and on their official forums (http://www.ina-community.com/forums/...hreadid=207203) I doubt that it's a joke.
As for only 25 beta testers that should read, 25 public beta testers. IG usually carries out most beta tests in-house therefore the 25 are in addition to the in-house team at IG (and possibly some people at QS.)

This is clearly a misguided PR gesture, rather than attempt to get real improvemnets in the game. QS's attitude must be that they dont want to make any real changes so theyre just gonna hand it out to a few lucky fans and claim that it was "publicly beta-tested".

Again since IG rarely if ever engages in public betas I agree with you that this is a PR "gesture". Though I don't believe that it is "misguided". It's about time IG began the PR machine rolling on this game.

P.S. I hope at least one of these betatesters will have the decency to put their copy on kazaa so that we can get a chance to give some _REAL_ feedback to QS gives us all the old hump'em and dump'em.

Well, I hope not. Such attitudes should make it apparent as to why IG prefers in-house testing as opposed to public testing. Especially after the "Kangamoo" incident QS and IG are a little skittish about placing this beta in the hands of the wrong people.

[moomin]

Nad, while I agree totally with your assessment of the inadequacy of this beta test, and largely with your suspicions as to why they're doing it, you're proposed solution goes beyond contra-productive into plain stupid territory.

[system370]

Originally posted by ashbery
With a month or 2 before release its only going to be bug-hunting anyway.

Agreed, it does not bode well to begin beta testing so close to the release date. Even more reason to delay purchase until after a patch or two have been release - in addition to saving a few bucks.

[Straybow]

"Kangamoo" incident… I've wondered how far-reaching the repercussions went. Much covering of hindquarters, little opening of ears already closed to criticism. I feel they missed an opportunity to learn from the feedback of an uncontrolled release of game features and data.

Yeah, I was tempted to hunt it down to see what I could see, but I realized that any comments derived from fiddling with it would be dismissed out of hand. It was months before QS/IG realized IFP would sink the game. We'd have the game now if they'd listened more to the Aussie feedback then. But such is life.

[Xentax]

I saw it -- from what I could tell, there wasn't enough there to realistically judge such key design decisions as the IFP concept. But that may have been because too much of the UI was undocumented/temporary; that is, while I didn't see much in the way of functionality, it may well have been there and only the devs knew how to get at it.

[Master Marcus]

Originally posted by system370
Agreed, it does not bode well to begin beta testing so close to the release date. Even more reason to delay purchase until after a patch or two have been release - in addition to saving a few bucks.

Well, for an anticipated "december" release, that means two months+ for the beta testing which is a reasonable and average time to expect a "good beta" at release, highly playable with minor bugs: face it, just like most other games. Of course the remaining bugs will be fixed, every major game is patched several times after release. In fact, expect 4 patches ( let's say, an additional 9 months- one year ) in order to have a more polished game. Just like SMAC, Civ III.

[vmxa1]

As they say in the card rooms here, "send it". I would be able to handle that and in fact agree it is likely to come down as you said.

[Darks]

I beg to differ with that comment, I am an Avid gamer and I have been playing Computer games for the last 15 yrs; I have played each of the MOO games at least 3 times over. I resent any remarks that the beta testers don’t know jack about playing game and are drooling over the game just to play it. I have been on countless Betas. In fact I am also on the Beta for Starfleet Command 3. So please keep your opinions to your self. I for one know how to Beta test.

I know how you feel, those of you that did not get choosen, I have tried to get on several Betas in the past and have been passed over to. So please keep the Beta tester bashing down to a minimum.

-Dark

[vmxa1]

Darks, could slap in a quote, so I know what remark you are talking about? Remember people are often only reading the post since their last visit and may not be clear on what you are responding to, thanks.

[Darks]

I was responding to the original poster of this message.

-Dark

[Nadexander]

Actually my opinion comes from the fact that I am a software QA (quality assurance) engineer. Most developers and many engineers who do qa (general engineers hired into qa as opposed to those with qa specialties) are NOT very good at software QA. In fact they are notoriously BAD at it. Now if this is what programming professionals do I simply _cringe_ at what a small random sampling of the game playing public might do. Really.

[vmxa1]

I will not try to dispute what you say, but I think one purpose of public testers is to see if they like it and to do the kinds of things that people do to applications when you let them use them. They do things we did not expect them to do and find issues. For those purposes anyone that can track what they do, should suffice.

[Grumbold]

Yes I agree vmxa1. They're presumably not looking for these people to try out all strategies to see if they are too weak or powerful, or to exhaustively test every button press or option, but to give their opinion on the playability and fun factor. Its amazing how many dire interfaces or glaring omissions make it to release simply because the developers have lived with it for so long that they have adapted to it. Civ3 being released with no grouping commands or sentry mode springs to mind.

[Xentax]

Originally posted by Nadexander
Actually my opinion comes from the fact that I am a software QA (quality assurance) engineer. Most developers and many engineers who do qa (general engineers hired into qa as opposed to those with qa specialties) are NOT very good at software QA. In fact they are notoriously BAD at it. Now if this is what programming professionals do I simply _cringe_ at what a small random sampling of the game playing public might do. Really.

I'm a software engineer, so I've got 2 cents to add on this issue (naturally). I agree with you, to the extent that I'll say that "your mileage will vary" when it comes to using anyone not specifically trained/experienced in doing QA.

Some people we've had doing system testing, who did NOT come from a QA, or even an engineering background, did a fantastic job testing -- they were thorough, they tried things the implementor didn't think of, etc.

So, random testers, IMHO, aren't "that much" more of a shot in the dark than 25 hand-picked people would be. It's also more likely to get a good cross-section of skill and interest levels. The game won't do well if only diehard fans enjoy it. It should *make* diehard fans of people new to the game, or even new to the genre.

The testers will need direction, to be sure -- they need to know that they should try *literally* anything they can think of to break the code. But you can't always use professionals to test, because it won't just be professionals using the final product. Face it, at the end of the day, people who use computers for a living reach a level of familiarity, at which they stop trying the kinds of things that people new to, or less comfortable with, computers are liable to try.

Things like "Gosh, all these extra files, I bet they don't do anything useful. I'll just delete them." Just how well will MOO3 "fail" when some of it's critical files aren't found? Only one way to find out from our side of the fence...

[Nowhere Man]

What I wonder is with such a limited beta test & only two months left (meaning in practice what has to hit the street on 26 oct. will need to completed and ready for packaging minimum 2 weeks before) how much are they going to catch (or rather not catch).

It's better than Firaxis I guess but still not by much. Getting the reports back - reproducing the errors - sorting out if it's a general or system specific thing (and weeding out all the garbage reports) locating the relevant code, correcting the issue and then testing how it now works out. And then so few testers of which many will be sending in no reports whatsoever.

Actually it sounds more like a PR thing than a real beta-test.

Rather squeezy to say the least & quite minimalistic on top of that meaning the actual beta testers will probably be the first round of buyers and that we will have series of patches following.

Well hopefully we will have a series of patches and hopefully they will continue to patch it until it is pretty much bug-free.

Anyway I really hope we get a great game - though I must say this beta thing here has not exacly lifted my confidence.

Lets hope they just got it right.

[system370]

Can I ask who you think make the best Moo3 Beta Testers?

Game Players? Programmers ? QA testers ?

What about people who have played Moo2 for 6 years and can name 20 bugs that still remain in Moo2? I bet none of the 25 chosen could detail the outstanding bugs in Moo2.

Just last summer a Fellow Moo2 player discovered a bug with Android workers - A new bug or an old one re-discovered I don't know, but IMO , it's those sort of people that should be doing the Beta testing - proven bug finders with a passion for the game.

[danminster]

I think the only thing required to be a decent beta tester is to be a critical "thinker". So long as you are trying to push the game with different approaches, etc., I think you should be able to catch different bugs that pop up. This is an exercise that is close to being able to proofread a manuscript.

I don't believe that it matters if you are a game player, programmer, or a QA tester, just as long as you know what you're doing.

I also think having too much passion for the game can have an adverse impact on one's ability to search through the game for errors.

[kallisti_dk]

Remember, we don't know how many internal testers Infogrames has, and how long they've been testing the game.

[Xentax]

Originally posted by system370
Can I ask who you think make the best Moo3 Beta Testers?

Game Players? Programmers ? QA testers ?

What about people who have played Moo2 for 6 years and can name 20 bugs that still remain in Moo2? I bet none of the 25 chosen could detail the outstanding bugs in Moo2.

Just last summer a Fellow Moo2 player discovered a bug with Android workers - A new bug or an old one re-discovered I don't know, but IMO , it's those sort of people that should be doing the Beta testing - proven bug finders with a passion for the game.

Infogrames has some subset of 100 internal QA people doing the serious bug-hunting. And yes, I'd take professionals, paid to find bugs, over veteran players. I'm not saying they haven't done a thorough job, but they've also had lots of time, and have built upon the play experience of thousands of other players. Finding obscure, hard-to-reproduce bugs in *pre-release* code is a different sort of challenge.

[Nadexander]

NOTHING reveals bugs like a public release. No matter how thourogh the QA team is 1 day in the hands of the end users will no doubt reveal bugs or major design flaws. Game companies know this. What varies is what exactly they decide to do about it.
When I paid $50 for Warcraft 3 I recieved a game that was in a highly refined stage of development, both technically and in terms of game play. I am confident (thanks to my experience with starcraft) that blizzard will continue to refine the game and provide me with updates.
In the case of Civ3, I had the pleasure of paying $70 to be a Pre-Alpha tester. I then declared that certain features that were an advertised part of the game when I pre-ordered (scenario builder, multiplayer) were instead going to be sold as a separate Add-on. Needless to say my confidence in Infogrammes willingness to stand behind the games it releases is less than rock solid.

[Xentax]

Agreed; for computer games, nothing finds bugs and other issues faster than multiplying the user base and spectrum of target hardware configurations by a few orders of magnitude.

I agree that Blizzard has made a good practice of patching (and often) until they feel like they've got it right.

However, I'm a bit more hopeful that QSI and IG will do the right thing when it comes to patches. I'd blame poor patching responsiveness for Civ3 on Firaxis more than IG, personally. QSI has certainly stated that they're committed to getting it right, not just out the door; we'll see how that holds up once the game goes public.

[Grumbold]

I dunno. There is obviously an incentive for both IG and Firaxis to make a new expansion or game to earn more revenue, but I think Firaxis would be quite happy to keep improving the quality of Civ III as long as IG kept paying them to do so. After all, its far more in their interest to have a game that is still being played and spoken of highly years after its release. We can all remember who developed many classic games, but who remembers or cares who published them?

[Xentax]

Well, people remember Sid Meier games as such.

It's one thing to be working on an expansion that adds major features (that were originally to be in the initial release...); it's another to keep patching in a timely fashion in the mean time. They *have* patched Civ3 a few times, but I've heard too many complain that they were slow in coming, or insufficient, etc.

My real beef with Civ3 is that it was *too* far off in the first release; it should never have gone gold with corruption that badly broken, for example. That sort of thing deserves an almost immediate patch, and it was ... weeks, maybe even a month or more, before the *first* patch to deal with corruption came out...

[vmxa1]

I give them some slack as it requires some thought and lots of testing to make those kinds of tweaks. If they tossed it out in 4 weeks, it may have been worse.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Xentax
Well, people remember Sid Meier games as such.

It's one thing to be working on an expansion that adds major features (that were originally to be in the initial release...); it's another to keep patching in a timely fashion in the mean time. They *have* patched Civ3 a few times, but I've heard too many complain that they were slow in coming, or insufficient, etc.

If you've heard too many complain because Civ III wasn't what they wanted then you've probably spent too much time on Apolyton. There were bugs in the initial release to be sure, air superiority as a major one for example, but issues like corruption, etc, were not bugs, IMHO.

My real beef with Civ3 is that it was *too* far off in the first release; it should never have gone gold with corruption that badly broken, for example. That sort of thing deserves an almost immediate patch, and it was ... weeks, maybe even a month or more, before the *first* patch to deal with corruption came out...

A "bug" is when something is broken in the game outside of the players ability to adapt. With air superiority, no matter what the player did it wouldn't work. With corruption, because you can't build 200 cities half way around the game world, doesn't mean it was "broken" merely that people wanted the game to be as the old versions had been, not have to change their play style.

What do you get when you have people who refuse to change how they do things because 'that's how it's always been done'? The general Civ III board here at Apolyton! lol!

When a game company is faced with the dilemna of a feature that works as it is supposed to but some (annoying and very vocal) people don't like, then you should expect a little delay in the company trying to figure out how to 'tweak' the feature so it still does what they want but also quiet's down some of the biggest 'complainers'.

Look at it this way... You may not have liked Civ III as it was initially shipped, but what shows that a game was shipped too early, having a patch come out 2-4 weeks after it hits the shelves or having a patch available as soon as the game hits the market like Blizzard has done in the past?

Oh, by the way, speaking of Blizzard, I guess none of the people who sing their praises ever played Diablo2 and went through all the see-saw cycles when the company released patch after patch that completely re-worked the game mechanics every time and rendered old characters as useless? You want an example of a company that releases stuff fast and then has to constantly fix their mistakes, look no farther than Diablo2 and Blizzard.

Let's just hope that PtW doesn't completely break and unbalance Civ III as LoD did with Diablo 2.

[vmxa1]

I agree corruption was not broken, I think it did what they intended. That some found it unplatable, is not to say it was broken.

[player1]

exactly