Because the (semi) public beta is mostly about making sure that the performance fundamentals are solid. They also need that time for an internal test of the tons and tons of content that isn't in the opening act, not in terms of bugs, necessarily, but in terms of making sure that the content itself is worth the big B on the box. Six months is actually pretty aggressive when you think about all of the mechanics in the game.
So you are saying they release beta for 6 months just to let people play it while they finish the game?If it was just to test the game on differing comp specs, they would not need 6 months to do this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
If it was just to test the game on differing comp specs, they would not need 6 months to do this.
Scy, I don't know if you get me - it isn't necessarily about bugs, or computer performance issues, it is about going through the game with a real critical eye, e.g., does an animation suck, is a quest line not working, is this boss too goofy, is an entire chunk of the game just too slow-paced. That's the other half of polishing a game, it isn't just about bugs, memory leaks, graphical rendering and hardware issues. And when you have this much content, this isn't a fast process, especially if you're trying to give yourself time for emergency rework attempts or need to adjust when something not up to snuff is thrown out.
Are you sayin the developers are doing this or the beta testers? This sounds like something for the devlopers so how does this effect beta length?
Basically, it's the same thing - but the feedback from the public is probably much more valuable to the engineers/programmers, while internal feedback is more important in terms of content. Of course, I don't know anything about their internal process, but their QA process is legendary in games, and I can't imagine any other approach, really.
In any of the creative arts, and even in things like industrial design or basic crafts, the great companies and great craftsmenm always step back and take a hard look at their work before they release it.
[...] it isn't necessarily about bugs, or computer performance issues, it is about going through the game with a real critical eye, e.g., does an animation suck, is a quest line not working, is this boss too goofy, is an entire chunk of the game just too slow-paced. That's the other half of polishing a game, it isn't just about bugs, memory leaks, graphical rendering and hardware issues. And when you have this much content, this isn't a fast process, especially if you're trying to give yourself time for emergency rework attempts or need to adjust when something not up to snuff is thrown out.
So, yes, six months is aggressive.
This.
In my line of work (Networking: Routing & Switching), we try to involve our customers closely in the development process. Once we have working builds that function from end to end without catastrophic issues (which is a stability milestone that takes a long time to achieve), we distribute customer (read: beta) builds so they can try them out in their test networks. They will use and experience our software in ways we couldn't have imagined, and make requests for improvements or changes in features and performance that we couldn't have thought up ourselves.
This is similar to what Bliz does in their betas: The more use-cases you have during the development process, the higher the quality of your product.. provided you can adequately respond to the issues raised by said use-cases.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
-Thomas Jefferson
The more use-cases you have during the development process, the higher the quality of your product.. provided you can adequately respond to the issues raised by said use-cases.
Right, and the film business has done this for decades with test screenings. One of the many, many advantages B has is that they can do real full-game content review with a thousand (!) in-house QAers and developers, even though they can't let the public see more than a small slice of the actual game content. Sometimes size really matters.
If they don't announce a beta this week, 11-11-11 belong to bethesda IMO.
11-11-11 belongs to Bethesda anyway i think, Blizzard never bothered to release their game at a time to hurt their rivals. It happens naturally on release
So you are saying they release beta for 6 months just to let people play it while they finish the game?If it was just to test the game on differing comp specs, they would not need 6 months to do this.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
Scy, I don't know if you get me - it isn't necessarily about bugs, or computer performance issues, it is about going through the game with a real critical eye, e.g., does an animation suck, is a quest line not working, is this boss too goofy, is an entire chunk of the game just too slow-paced. That's the other half of polishing a game, it isn't just about bugs, memory leaks, graphical rendering and hardware issues. And when you have this much content, this isn't a fast process, especially if you're trying to give yourself time for emergency rework attempts or need to adjust when something not up to snuff is thrown out.
So, yes, six months is aggressive.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
Basically, it's the same thing - but the feedback from the public is probably much more valuable to the engineers/programmers, while internal feedback is more important in terms of content. Of course, I don't know anything about their internal process, but their QA process is legendary in games, and I can't imagine any other approach, really.
In any of the creative arts, and even in things like industrial design or basic crafts, the great companies and great craftsmenm always step back and take a hard look at their work before they release it.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
That's why I didn't ask it
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
This.
In my line of work (Networking: Routing & Switching), we try to involve our customers closely in the development process. Once we have working builds that function from end to end without catastrophic issues (which is a stability milestone that takes a long time to achieve), we distribute customer (read: beta) builds so they can try them out in their test networks. They will use and experience our software in ways we couldn't have imagined, and make requests for improvements or changes in features and performance that we couldn't have thought up ourselves.
This is similar to what Bliz does in their betas: The more use-cases you have during the development process, the higher the quality of your product.. provided you can adequately respond to the issues raised by said use-cases.
-Thomas Jefferson
Right, and the film business has done this for decades with test screenings. One of the many, many advantages B has is that they can do real full-game content review with a thousand (!) in-house QAers and developers, even though they can't let the public see more than a small slice of the actual game content. Sometimes size really matters.
If you think it's going to be released this year then you are in dream land.
But, we won't know until we know.
If they don't announce a beta this week, 11-11-11 belong to bethesda IMO.
11-11-11 belongs to Bethesda anyway i think, Blizzard never bothered to release their game at a time to hurt their rivals. It happens naturally on release