kinda early right?
nope
because 343 still has the chance to put the engine of the next next halo on the disc we get this year. so, who is with me on this idea.
A beta, either on the limited edition of the next halo or the original, like on odst. I dont think chances are that great but i would certainly buy the special edition if it does come with a beta.
I think a beta would work if the community actually gives feedback instead of just treating it like a free demo. That being said, the majority of players will probably not give good feedback and a public beta may end up being a waste of time and resources.
> kinda early right?
> nope
> because 343 still has the chance to put the engine of the next next halo on the disc we get this year. so, who is with me on this idea.
>
> A beta, either on the limited edition of the next halo or the original, like on odst. I dont think chances are that great but i would certainly buy the special edition if it does come with a beta.
>
> + i believe it brings up the hype even more for halo fans who play it. Just look at what happened at halo reach.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
The game comes out in less then a year so I don’t get how that’s early but whatever.
But Frankie and the blind followers of 343i will tell you that it’s pointless. Even tho it makes perfect sense to have one.
> I think a beta would work if the community actually gives feedback instead of just treating it like a free demo. That being said, the majority of players will probably not give good feedback and a public beta may end up being a waste of time and resources.
Yeah let’s wait to see what everyone thinks about the game after release. Because we all know how well that went last time. I love how 343i claims to listen to the fans so much yet when the time comes to prove it they always fall short.
> > kinda early right?
> > nope
> > because 343 still has the chance to put the engine of the next next halo on the disc we get this year. so, who is with me on this idea.
> >
> > A beta, either on the limited edition of the next halo or the original, like on odst. I dont think chances are that great but i would certainly buy the special edition if it does come with a beta.
> >
> > + i believe it brings up the hype even more for halo fans who play it. Just look at what happened at halo reach.
The only sense it makes to have a public beta is to stress test the dedicated servers, which most likely will crash the first day any way. And there are other ways to stress test the servers.
None of you will spend the full time of the beta to test different button combinations in order to find some sort of game breaking glitch, or different ways to combine perks and whatnot in order to get all the perks active at the same time and so forth. Only a small fraction of the total player count will do that. Which is what’s done in a beta.
If you want early access then ask for a pre-release demo of the game with the release code. Not a public beta because that eats more resources than a demo and is only “active” for a short while. Furthermore the closed beta testers are more likely to find the same amount of glitches if not more than the community in a public beta for less resources spent.
> > > kinda early right?
> > > nope
> > > because 343 still has the chance to put the engine of the next next halo on the disc we get this year. so, who is with me on this idea.
> > >
> > > A beta, either on the limited edition of the next halo or the original, like on odst. I dont think chances are that great but i would certainly buy the special edition if it does come with a beta.
> > >
> > > + i believe it brings up the hype even more for halo fans who play it. Just look at what happened at halo reach.
>
> The only sense it makes to have a public beta is to stress test the dedicated servers, which most likely will crash the first day any way. And there are other ways to stress test the servers.
>
> None of you will spend the full time of the beta to test different button combinations in order to find some sort of game breaking glitch, or different ways to combine perks and whatnot in order to get all the perks active at the same time and so forth. Only a small fraction of the total player count will do that. Which is what’s done in a beta.
>
> If you want early access then ask for a pre-release demo of the game with the release code. Not a public beta because that eats more resources than a demo and is only “active” for a short while. Furthermore the closed beta testers are more likely to find the same amount of glitches if not more than the community in a public beta for less resources spent.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Look a wild butt kiss appeared.
But yeah halo 4 tried the so called private beta and we all know how halo 4 was at launch (hell it still sucks) but yet everyone claims that 343i can handle it.
And yes I would look for bugs because its fun to find crap like that. And so would a lot of people seeing as how we know people love playing like -Yoinks!-, and would rather cheat then get good at the game.
> > > > kinda early right?
> > > > nope
> > > > because 343 still has the chance to put the engine of the next next halo on the disc we get this year. so, who is with me on this idea.
> > > >
> > > > A beta, either on the limited edition of the next halo or the original, like on odst. I dont think chances are that great but i would certainly buy the special edition if it does come with a beta.
> > > >
> > > > + i believe it brings up the hype even more for halo fans who play it. Just look at what happened at halo reach.
> >
> > The only sense it makes to have a public beta is to stress test the dedicated servers, which most likely will crash the first day any way. And there are other ways to stress test the servers.
> >
> > None of you will spend the full time of the beta to test different button combinations in order to find some sort of game breaking glitch, or different ways to combine perks and whatnot in order to get all the perks active at the same time and so forth. Only a small fraction of the total player count will do that. Which is what’s done in a beta.
> >
> > If you want early access then ask for a pre-release demo of the game with the release code. Not a public beta because that eats more resources than a demo and is only “active” for a short while. Furthermore the closed beta testers are more likely to find the same amount of glitches if not more than the community in a public beta for less resources spent.
Do you honestly believe that Halo 4 would have changed between the Beta and the release version? The only time they would have done something to a feature would have been if a feature had a glitch. Nothing else would have been done to none of the features.
It wouldn’t have mattered what the community had said at that point because the game has gone past the point where features are removed or added. Or even significantly changed. Ordnance would still have functioned like it does now. Even Reach’s Armor Lock remained the same despite the explsion it managed to produce on b.net.
If it had sucked in the Beta, it’d have sucked on the release, like it does now.
And as I said, only a small fraction of the total beta player base would activley look for broken things. It’s an early access to most players because that’s what betas have become to the regular players. Those who doesn’t like to get good at the game won’t activley look for them in the game, they’ll look for them on the internet and then use them ingame. Because looking for advantageous glitches is in the same level of work as becoming good at the game, only more tedious.
Glitch and bug wise the closed beta did do it’s work on Halo 4, few glitches managed to get through and most have been fixed. The only ones I remember reading about were the Boltshot reloading thing, some geometry mess up and headless spartans. Then there’s the AC blue dot glitch which I think even has yet to be confirmed.
Top that off with the fact that I never encountered them at all, except the AC one. So yes, it did it’s job.
> > > > > kinda early right?
> > > > > nope
> > > > > because 343 still has the chance to put the engine of the next next halo on the disc we get this year. so, who is with me on this idea.
> > > > >
> > > > > A beta, either on the limited edition of the next halo or the original, like on odst. I dont think chances are that great but i would certainly buy the special edition if it does come with a beta.
> > > > >
> > > > > + i believe it brings up the hype even more for halo fans who play it. Just look at what happened at halo reach.
> > > >
> > > > The game comes out in less then a year so I don’t get how that’s early but whatever.
> > > > But Frankie and the blind followers of 343i will tell you that it’s pointless. Even tho it makes perfect sense to have one.
> > >
> > > The only sense it makes to have a public beta is to stress test the dedicated servers, which most likely will crash the first day any way. And there are other ways to stress test the servers.
> > >
> > > None of you will spend the full time of the beta to test different button combinations in order to find some sort of game breaking glitch, or different ways to combine perks and whatnot in order to get all the perks active at the same time and so forth. Only a small fraction of the total player count will do that. Which is what’s done in a beta.
> > >
> > > If you want early access then ask for a pre-release demo of the game with the release code. Not a public beta because that eats more resources than a demo and is only “active” for a short while. Furthermore the closed beta testers are more likely to find the same amount of glitches if not more than the community in a public beta for less resources spent.
>
> Do you honestly believe that Halo 4 would have changed between the Beta and the release version? The only time they would have done something to a feature would have been if a feature had a glitch. Nothing else would have been done to none of the features.
>
> It wouldn’t have mattered what the community had said at that point because the game has gone past the point where features are removed or added. Or even significantly changed. Ordnance would still have functioned like it does now. Even Reach’s Armor Lock remained the same despite the explsion it managed to produce on b.net.
>
> If it had sucked in the Beta, it’d have sucked on the release, like it does now.
>
> And as I said, only a small fraction of the total beta player base would activley look for broken things. It’s an early access to most players because that’s what betas have become to the regular players. Those who doesn’t like to get good at the game won’t activley look for them in the game, they’ll look for them on the internet and then use them ingame. Because looking for advantageous glitches is in the same level of work as becoming good at the game, only more tedious.
>
> Glitch and bug wise the closed beta did do it’s work on Halo 4, few glitches managed to get through and most have been fixed. The only ones I remember reading about were the Boltshot reloading thing, some geometry mess up and headless spartans. Then there’s the AC blue dot glitch which I think even has yet to be confirmed.
>
> Top that off with the fact that I never encountered them at all, except the AC one. So yes, it did it’s job.
well they need the fan bases view point on the game. They can’t add whatever game changing feature they want and not get the fanbases viewpoints on wether or not they want such things in a halo game.
Like it or not this game is not 343i’s it’s microsofts game they own it. So they have to make Microsoft money or else. And I don’t think -Yoink!- off the fan base by saying we got this when the last time they said that they didn’t have -Yoink-. I don’t think that’s very smart of 343i.
And if 343i wants to not get fired they need to make money, and to make money they need to not piss of 97% of there entire fan base.
So like it or not its not your game and its not my game and its not 343i’s game it’s the entire fanbases game.
And the if the 97% even think that 343i is gonna screw them again they won’t buy the game this time around.
97% of the fanbase doesnt buy the game because you pissed them of means No money = no 343i.
They won’t keep 343i if they don’t make them money.
> > > > > > kinda early right?
> > > > > > nope
> > > > > > because 343 still has the chance to put the engine of the next next halo on the disc we get this year. so, who is with me on this idea.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A beta, either on the limited edition of the next halo or the original, like on odst. I dont think chances are that great but i would certainly buy the special edition if it does come with a beta.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + i believe it brings up the hype even more for halo fans who play it. Just look at what happened at halo reach.
> > > > >
> > > > > The game comes out in less then a year so I don’t get how that’s early but whatever.
> > > > > But Frankie and the blind followers of 343i will tell you that it’s pointless. Even tho it makes perfect sense to have one.
> > > >
> > > > The only sense it makes to have a public beta is to stress test the dedicated servers, which most likely will crash the first day any way. And there are other ways to stress test the servers.
> > > >
> > > > None of you will spend the full time of the beta to test different button combinations in order to find some sort of game breaking glitch, or different ways to combine perks and whatnot in order to get all the perks active at the same time and so forth. Only a small fraction of the total player count will do that. Which is what’s done in a beta.
> > > >
> > > > If you want early access then ask for a pre-release demo of the game with the release code. Not a public beta because that eats more resources than a demo and is only “active” for a short while. Furthermore the closed beta testers are more likely to find the same amount of glitches if not more than the community in a public beta for less resources spent.
> > >
> > > Look a wild butt kiss appeared.
> > > But yeah halo 4 tried the so called private beta and we all know how halo 4 was at launch (hell it still sucks) but yet everyone claims that 343i can handle it.
> > > And yes I would look for bugs because its fun to find crap like that. And so would a lot of people seeing as how we know people love playing like -Yoinks!-, and would rather cheat then get good at the game.
> >
> > Do you honestly believe that Halo 4 would have changed between the Beta and the release version? The only time they would have done something to a feature would have been if a feature had a glitch. Nothing else would have been done to none of the features.
> >
> > It wouldn’t have mattered what the community had said at that point because the game has gone past the point where features are removed or added. Or even significantly changed. Ordnance would still have functioned like it does now. Even Reach’s Armor Lock remained the same despite the explsion it managed to produce on b.net.
> >
> > If it had sucked in the Beta, it’d have sucked on the release, like it does now.
> >
> > And as I said, only a small fraction of the total beta player base would activley look for broken things. It’s an early access to most players because that’s what betas have become to the regular players. Those who doesn’t like to get good at the game won’t activley look for them in the game, they’ll look for them on the internet and then use them ingame. Because looking for advantageous glitches is in the same level of work as becoming good at the game, only more tedious.
> >
> > Glitch and bug wise the closed beta did do it’s work on Halo 4, few glitches managed to get through and most have been fixed. The only ones I remember reading about were the Boltshot reloading thing, some geometry mess up and headless spartans. Then there’s the AC blue dot glitch which I think even has yet to be confirmed.
> >
> > Top that off with the fact that I never encountered them at all, except the AC one. So yes, it did it’s job.
>
> well they need the fan bases view point on the game. They can’t add whatever game changing feature they want and not get the fanbases viewpoints on wether or not they want such things in a halo game.
> Like it or not this game is not 343i’s it’s microsofts game they own it. So they have to make Microsoft money or else. And I don’t think -Yoink!- off the fan base by saying we got this when the last time they said that they didn’t have Yoink!. I don’t think that’s very smart of 343i.
> And if 343i wants to not get fired they need to make money, and to make money they need to not piss of 97% of there entire fan base.
> So like it or not its not your game and its not my game and its not 343i’s game it’s the entire fanbases game.
> And the if the 97% even think that 343i is gonna screw them again they won’t buy the game this time around.
> 97% of the fanbase doesnt buy the game because you pissed them of means No money = no 343i.
> They won’t keep 343i if they don’t make them money.
I like this guy. Lol.
Definitely could have been worded a little better, but maybe you are trying to demonstrate how pissed off you are just like the rest of us. I honestly would love to see Microsoft get involved and hold 343 at gunpoint to go back to what made Halo successful.
The game was more successful then ever and was doing great through Halo 3 and had a cult following, and huge E-sports presence, and then they changed the formula and nuked it back to the stone age. Don’t fix what isn’t broken.
While a beta would be nice i doubt even a 4th of the people here own an xbox one to participate in said beta. If your asking for a beta for a next gen game to appear on the current consoles 10 year old hardware then you might as well give up. Never going to happen.
> > > > > > kinda early right?
> > > > > > nope
> > > > > > because 343 still has the chance to put the engine of the next next halo on the disc we get this year. so, who is with me on this idea.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A beta, either on the limited edition of the next halo or the original, like on odst. I dont think chances are that great but i would certainly buy the special edition if it does come with a beta.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + i believe it brings up the hype even more for halo fans who play it. Just look at what happened at halo reach.
> > > > >
> > > > > The game comes out in less then a year so I don’t get how that’s early but whatever.
> > > > > But Frankie and the blind followers of 343i will tell you that it’s pointless. Even tho it makes perfect sense to have one.
> > > >
> > > > The only sense it makes to have a public beta is to stress test the dedicated servers, which most likely will crash the first day any way. And there are other ways to stress test the servers.
> > > >
> > > > None of you will spend the full time of the beta to test different button combinations in order to find some sort of game breaking glitch, or different ways to combine perks and whatnot in order to get all the perks active at the same time and so forth. Only a small fraction of the total player count will do that. Which is what’s done in a beta.
> > > >
> > > > If you want early access then ask for a pre-release demo of the game with the release code. Not a public beta because that eats more resources than a demo and is only “active” for a short while. Furthermore the closed beta testers are more likely to find the same amount of glitches if not more than the community in a public beta for less resources spent.
> > >
> > > Look a wild butt kiss appeared.
> > > But yeah halo 4 tried the so called private beta and we all know how halo 4 was at launch (hell it still sucks) but yet everyone claims that 343i can handle it.
> > > And yes I would look for bugs because its fun to find crap like that. And so would a lot of people seeing as how we know people love playing like -Yoinks!-, and would rather cheat then get good at the game.
> >
> > Do you honestly believe that Halo 4 would have changed between the Beta and the release version? The only time they would have done something to a feature would have been if a feature had a glitch. Nothing else would have been done to none of the features.
> >
> > It wouldn’t have mattered what the community had said at that point because the game has gone past the point where features are removed or added. Or even significantly changed. Ordnance would still have functioned like it does now. Even Reach’s Armor Lock remained the same despite the explsion it managed to produce on b.net.
> >
> > If it had sucked in the Beta, it’d have sucked on the release, like it does now.
> >
> > And as I said, only a small fraction of the total beta player base would activley look for broken things. It’s an early access to most players because that’s what betas have become to the regular players. Those who doesn’t like to get good at the game won’t activley look for them in the game, they’ll look for them on the internet and then use them ingame. Because looking for advantageous glitches is in the same level of work as becoming good at the game, only more tedious.
> >
> > Glitch and bug wise the closed beta did do it’s work on Halo 4, few glitches managed to get through and most have been fixed. The only ones I remember reading about were the Boltshot reloading thing, some geometry mess up and headless spartans. Then there’s the AC blue dot glitch which I think even has yet to be confirmed.
> >
> > Top that off with the fact that I never encountered them at all, except the AC one. So yes, it did it’s job.
>
> well they need the fan bases view point on the game. They can’t add whatever game changing feature they want and not get the fanbases viewpoints on wether or not they want such things in a halo game.
> Like it or not this game is not 343i’s it’s microsofts game they own it. So they have to make Microsoft money or else. And I don’t think -Yoink!- off the fan base by saying we got this when the last time they said that they didn’t have Yoink!. I don’t think that’s very smart of 343i.
> And if 343i wants to not get fired they need to make money, and to make money they need to not piss of 97% of there entire fan base.
> So like it or not its not your game and its not my game and its not 343i’s game it’s the entire fanbases game.
> And the if the 97% even think that 343i is gonna screw them again they won’t buy the game this time around.
> 97% of the fanbase doesnt buy the game because you pissed them of means No money = no 343i.
> They won’t keep 343i if they don’t make them money.
Halo 4 and reach both sold very well despite the feelings said community has. So money won’t and will never be an issue. It has halo in it’s name it will sell well.
Secondly none of your numbers are even close to being true. You’re being over dramatic.
> well they need the fan bases view point on the game. They can’t add whatever game changing feature they want and not get the fanbases viewpoints on wether or not they want such things in a halo game.
And a Beta is not going to change the game wether or not the fanbase likes it.
Believe it or not but Microsoft sets a deadline and i343 has to follow it. The beta is nothing more than a glitch finder. The fanbase is not going to affect the features in the game in anyway. No feature is going to get removed because of the fanbase. And no feature is going to be implemented because it’s beyond that point.
If they are going to put new features in despite being in the beta stage the release date will be pushed back atleast two or three months, probably more to make sure that the new feature doesn’t include new broken things and that it doesn’t break stuff allready in the code.
> Like it or not this game is not 343i’s it’s microsofts game they own it. So they have to make Microsoft money or else. And I don’t think -Yoink!- off the fan base by saying we got this when the last time they said that they didn’t have Yoink!. I don’t think that’s very smart of 343i.
> And if 343i wants to not get fired they need to make money, and to make money they need to not piss of 97% of there entire fan base.
> So like it or not its not your game and its not my game and its not 343i’s game it’s the entire fanbases game.
> And the if the 97% even think that 343i is gonna screw them again they won’t buy the game this time around.
> 97% of the fanbase doesnt buy the game because you pissed them of means No money = no 343i.
> They won’t keep 343i if they don’t make them money.
Despite that, a Beta wouldn’t have changed Halo 4’s current position. An alpha would be better in that case. But they’re not going to release a public alpha version either.
Please don’t pull statistics out of thin air.
I’ve said this so many times, I’m tired of saying it, but last I must.
There should be NO PUBLIC BETA. Why, because it’s a waste of time, most people, like others have already pointed out, don’t treat Betas as betas, they treat betas as early access demos. Neither betas nor Demos are meant for what YOU’RE asking OP.
Betas are for finding bugs, and getting them fixed, Demos is your early hype inducing, sneak peak of the game.
What is need is a semi public/closed PLAY TEST. Play tests are not betas, they’re not demos, they are a test used to let a small or large group of people TEST, the game, and figure out if it’s what they like, and give feedback on it. THAT’S WHAT HALO NEEDS.
Halo 5 should do a playtest, select people from all Halo and non Halo communities, even number of people from each communities, so no single group of people feel like they’re not equally represented. They are picked partly by random, and partly by their activity in the game, and on the forums, how much feedback they give, and how popular they are. They should be given a chance to play small snips of each game mode, and then after a set amount of games and/or hours/days, they should have to give a very detailed report giving their feedback on their gameplay. If they perform this task in a timely manner, and give FEEDBACK, not “Your game sucks, you should go screw yourself because of how bad your game is!”, they should be allowed to play more. If they don’t give feedback, they’re removed from the playtest, and then luck out on any future chances of such playtests and/or early access.
By no means am I saying they should only pick the popular people. But at the same time, I’m not saying they should pick the random everyday joe, who is more or less an unknown person to the community as a whole. The idea is to have people who are well known among the community, so people know that the developers are letting people “test” the game, but also so they can report to their fellow community members about their playtest, and feedback, the community can look at what they say, and have a good picture of what to expect in the game.
The idea behind public betas aren’t what you are thinking, and what you treat it like. These days Public betas are more of a marketing tool than a “We want our community’s opinion on our work.” tool. And because of that, I don’t agree with all of the “WE WANT A PUBLIC BETA!” BS people throw around. I don’t want a public beta, I want a Play Test where the playtesters, and their feedback are public, and maybe even their gameplay. I want REAL PEOPLE, giving REAL FEEDBACK, in a PLAYTEST. Not some random Joe playing the game early, and having the honor system based feedback, where the developers trust the players to give feedback.
And yes, I know people like you ItsDaMarine, are going to start pulling the “WE HATE 343I, AND YOU’RE JUST BLIND FANBOYS” card, so I’m going to say this. Good feedback isn’t feedback that’s littered with insults, and flaming of the developers. You don’t like something, GOOD! There is no reason to attack the developers just because you do not like something. You know what happens when you become a loud mouth A Hole, who does nothing but treat the developers, and everyone who doesn’t agree like crap? EVERYONE IGNORES HIM/HER. People are more willing to listen to people’s complaints, and feedback, if they’re nice about it, and give DETAILS, on what’s wrong.
You go weird!
> > > .
>
> None of you
> Only a small fraction of the total player count will do that.
You just contradicted yourself.
Facts are, players really do report on these things, they do bring up glitches and they do talk about game balance. It worked in the Reach beta, it worked in the Halo 3 beta, why wouldn’t it work in a Halo 5 beta?
I mean, as a fellow forum goer, you can’t honestly expect to tell us that this community would not pick apart the design of the game and give swathes of feedback in a beta. You simply can’t say that, not with all of the feedback the community has thus far given. The TU that they did for Halo 4? Could have been launch-day standard if there was a beta and large chunks of the complaining could have been avoided.
There are those who use it as a free demo yes, but you don’t give this community enough credit. A beta can only benefit the game, as a stress tester, and to have a much larger player sample to workout more clearly what the community wants, and by the same token, a larger player base to discover exploits and glitches.
343i has their reasons for not doing one for Halo 4. They were understaffed as it is with a deadline, I understand that. Now they have more employees than any Halo game before it, they have more than enough resources to successfully run an open beta. They simply have no excuse this time, not with how much people were disappointed.
> The game was more successful then ever and was doing great through Halo 3 and had a cult following, and huge E-sports presence, and then they changed the formula and nuked it back to the stone age. Don’t fix what isn’t broken.
-Yoink-, fixing the unbroken stuff is the only way our society has evolved. What was so wrong after all with subsistence agriculture? Rain always worked before to irrigate the land, right?
No, innovation comes from finding improvements to existing functional elements of technology and society. Halo 4’s major fault is simply that it was that fun according to what we consider as fun here and now. With that in mind even “going back to Halo 3’s formula” isn’t a promising way of finding better mechanics simply because (of the quite obvious point) that we’ve played it all before. How much more is there to squeeze from that game’s multiplayer that we didn’t wring out of it already with 3 long, dedicated years of grinding and the intervening time since spent playing its successors? Release the same now and you’ll surely have, at the very least, the same depressing online population that Halo 4 now enjoys simply because of intrinsic depreciation with time.
And THEN you also have to consider how the rest of the industry has evolved as well. Back in 2004 there weren’t many other games that could allow the same depth of gameplay that Halo 2 or CE had with an integrated melee-gun-grenade control scheme. Now it’s not only customary but most games have moved beyond it to include equipment, powers, classes, or just simply more various kinds of guns, grenades, and melee attacks. There’s been clear progress in the complexity and development of games over the past 9 years and that factors into the depreciation of Halo’s relative entertainment value. It’s no longer the shooter, its merely a shooter which has had to suffer both with rust and obsolescence.
If Microsoft is to issue any gun-point commands, it should be to reinvent the wheel, and give us our -Yoinking!- jetpacks (figuratively speaking.)
> Facts are, players really do report on these things, they do bring up glitches and they do talk about game balance. It worked in the Reach beta, it worked in the Halo 3 beta, why wouldn’t it work in a Halo 5 beta?
> .
Because it didn’t work with Reach. For all that game did to “ruin Halo” with bloom, AL, and sprint-double melee not a single one of those all but admittedly game-breaking items was caught by the public beta. Sure a few things were updated, but it’s beyond the scope of a public beta to fix what we would call broken games (because its far too late in the development process to do more than tweak existing mechanics) and thus satisfy our biggest interest in having the beta.
Now there are other examples where a beta would have helped (ex. Gears of War 2) but generally (and I’ve heard this from several devs) they soak up a lot of internal resources and result in feedback from only a fraction of the total beta population. That can be useful, but it has to be balanced against the costs of the beta and against the other ways a game can be tested. Thus the decision should fall to internal management, who presumably have a better handle on the resources and state of the game, NOT us.
> Now there are other examples where a beta would have helped (ex. Gears of War 2) but generally (and I’ve heard this from several devs) they soak up a lot of internal resources and result in feedback from only a fraction of the total beta population. That can be useful, but it has to be balanced against the costs of the beta and against the other ways a game can be tested. Thus the decision should fall to internal management, who presumably have a better handle on the resources and state of the game, NOT us.
^Couldn’t of said it better myself. Community members can talk a lot, and say they know what should be done, BUT, that’s all it is, talk. I can explain to you how to build a Jet Engine, or some basic in running a business. But that doesn’t mean I know what the hell I’m talking about.
We as a community needs to understand WHERE is our place in planning and development of Halo. YES, we are the customers, but that doesn’t mean we should be in full control of Halo. Customers are NEVER Right.
> > > > .
> >
> > None of you
>
>
>
>
>
> > Only a small fraction of the total player count will do that.
>
> You just contradicted yourself.
No one in this thread would spend two entire weeks, 8+ hours per day every day bumping walls in different angles and speeds. Through every map available.
No one in this thread would spend two entire weeks, 8+ hours per day every day of the week looking for ways to break the game.
Only a small fraction of the beta player base would actually do that.
Unless you have video footage of you spending 100+ hours actually beta testing a game by trying to break the game I won’t believe that you would spend that amount of time trying to break the game.
> Facts are, players really do report on these things, they do bring up glitches and they do talk about game balance. It worked in the Reach beta, it worked in the Halo 3 beta, why wouldn’t it work in a Halo 5 beta?
Of course it worked in the Reach and Halo 3 beta, stuff gets reported all the time. But the games themselves barely changed anything balance wise. The only condition they’d be in after a beta is have less glitches. No major feature change would happen.
Also, it’s a matter of cost effectiveness. Either i343 and Microsoft spend millions rolling out a part of the game, that means cutting out stuff, making sure those parts are playable, putting it on a server and have people download it. Then the company, or people at the company have to literally swim through threads upon threads of crap to find even an ounce of actual glitch and bug reports.
Oppose that to not cutting the game down, only distributing it to a smaller player base through other means than uploading it to an official server, not having to check if the game is playable because it is. And they also have a better report system for glitches and bugs as it’s the only thing that actually gets reported. Not only that but as those beta testers know what they’re doing they actually know how to report a glitch/bug
[/quote]
> I mean, as a fellow forum goer, you can’t honestly expect to tell us that this community would not pick apart the design of the game and give swathes of feedback in a beta. You simply can’t say that, not with all of the feedback the community has thus far given. The TU that they did for Halo 4? Could have been launch-day standard if there was a beta and large chunks of the complaining could have been avoided.
What complaints? That the gameplay is bad? Read carefully now: a beta wouldn’t have changed the gameplay. Because everything is already completed, they are only looking for bugs and glitches.
If it’s bugs and glitches you mean then only a few managed to get through.
> There are those who use it as a free demo yes, but you don’t give this community enough credit. A beta can only benefit the game, as a stress tester, and to have a much larger player sample to workout more clearly what the community wants, and by the same token, a larger player base to discover exploits and glitches.
A public beta could potentially benefit the game, but it’s less cost effective. And as I said, the gameplay won’t change from a beta to the finished product, because it’s closed to finished already. And internal beta testers already find glitches anyway.
Who’s to say that the glitches found in Reach hadn’t already been found when the beta rolled out?
> 343i has their reasons for not doing one for Halo 4. They were understaffed as it is with a deadline, I understand that. Now they have more employees than any Halo game before it, they have more than enough resources to successfully run an open beta. They simply have no excuse this time, not with how much people were disappointed.
I’m going to let you define “succesful beta” now.
DEMO not BETA, sorry, i said BETA, I meant DEMO!
A demo that 343 could learn from there mistakes and glitches…lol practically a beta, but for the fans to enjoy. And not for halo on xbox one…for the game after it, included in halo on xbox one, for a specific date in the future… you get me now. thats why i said, next NEXT halo