Should Halo:XboxOne (working title) have a beta?
I, for one, believe that an open or closed beta could prove very Constructive to the development of this new installment in the reclaimer saga. Not for bug and glitch hunting, but for refining the balancing of the sandbox elements and gameplay mechanics.
What do you think?
I think it’d be a waste of resources for i343 to make a public beta.
Nothing will change in the game between the beta and release. Nothing. Glitches will be fixed. Features won’t be removed, added or changed. They’ll be fixed if there’s a glitch with them, but not changed.
They will do an internal beta though. Those always happen. And that is for hunting glitches and bugs.
> I think it’d be a waste of resources for i343 to make a public beta.
>
> Nothing will change in the game between the beta and release. Nothing. Glitches will be fixed. Features won’t be removed, added or changed. They’ll be fixed if there’s a glitch with them, but not changed.
>
> They will do an internal beta though. Those always happen. And that is for hunting glitches and bugs.
This.
I also question the community’s ability to actually bug hunt and just how many bugs they found compared to the QA team or even what bugs they found that QA didn’t. I doubt it’s many, if at all, and in the end doesn’t make for a wise investment from the developer.
Public Beta’s aren’t for bug hunts, they are for publicity and hype building.
> I think it’d be a waste of resources for i343 to make a public beta.
>
> Nothing will change in the game between the beta and release. Nothing. Glitches will be fixed. Features won’t be removed, added or changed. They’ll be fixed if there’s a glitch with them, but not changed.
>
> They will do an internal beta though. Those always happen. And that is for hunting glitches and bugs.
Well yea. glitches.
Was thinking more along the lines of gameplay mechanics and player stats like jump height, hitpoints, movement speed, etc.
Be nice if that was uniform when the game came out. And stayed that way.
But thats just my 0.02$
> Not for bug and glitch hunting, but for refining the balancing of the sandbox elements and gameplay mechanics.
Tweaking the sandbox like with Halo 4’s turbo and weapon tuning TU is something that always happens post-release.
yes
or least balance it better because that dmr was lol worthy pre patch
> > Not for bug and glitch hunting, but for refining the balancing of the sandbox elements and gameplay mechanics.
>
> Tweaking the sandbox like with Halo 4’s turbo and weapon tuning TU is something that always happens post-release.
Really? Always? In every game ever?
I might be wrong, but I seem to remember H2 and H3 being relatively stable in this regard. Reach changed most notably with the anniversary TU, which appeared when 343 industries took over the franchise.
Whatever. I just want continuity.
> yes
> or least balance it better because that dmr was lol worthy pre patch
Look at my service record. Then look at my most used weapon. Then look at Last Played Date. (its pre-patch).
What Im trying to say is, damn I wish Halo 4 had a public beta.
> I think it’d be a waste of resources for i343 to make a public beta.
>
> Nothing will change in the game between the beta and release. Nothing. Glitches will be fixed. Features won’t be removed, added or changed. They’ll be fixed if there’s a glitch with them, but not changed.
>
> They will do an internal beta though. Those always happen. And that is for hunting glitches and bugs.
Having a beta is a good thing though.
A beta isn’t about changing the game, it helps avoids balancing Issues before the game is released
Most importantly People love betas getting to play the game early is a great thing and there is no better way to build up hype than a opened beta 
> > > Not for bug and glitch hunting, but for refining the balancing of the sandbox elements and gameplay mechanics.
> >
> > Tweaking the sandbox like with Halo 4’s turbo and weapon tuning TU is something that always happens post-release.
>
> Really? Always? In every game ever?
>
> I might be wrong, but I seem to remember H2 and H3 being relatively stable in this regard. Reach changed most notably with the anniversary TU, which appeared when 343 industries took over the franchise.
>
> Whatever. I just want continuity.
H2 had a TU because of some the problems with it. H3 had about two that I know of one changed melee system , playlists changes , and some networking and another add military ranks to individual playlists. Also bungie added BR starts(or at least more varients) in December of the same year h3 released. The only gameplay effecting major update 343 ever did for halo 4 was weapon tuning and base movement increase.
> Well yea. glitches.
>
> Was thinking more along the lines of gameplay mechanics and player stats like jump height, hitpoints, movement speed, etc.
>
> Be nice if that was uniform when the game came out. And stayed that way.
>
> But thats just my 0.02$
Game balance is not a priority during beta. Finding glitches and bugs is. Why? Because a public beta is an older version than that the devs use, they can’t test update an older version with weapon balance updates because then they’re running two different versions of the same game. Which is a waste of resources.
Devs use public betas to hype a game or to stress test servers. Sometimes a few glitches they didn’t notice surfaces but that’s hardly cost worthy. If you spend hundreds of thousands to make a separate public beta than the one you yourself use which is also most of the time only a part of the game, and a few glitches that you didn’t notice surface, then that’s not worth the money.
Balancing has more or less already happened in alpha. Very little is going to change from there.
> Having a beta is a good thing though.
Cost perspective? Not if the priority is to find glitches. To hype the game? Market campaigns do a better job.
> A beta isn’t about changing the game, it helps avoids balancing Issues before the game is released
Which rarely happen because they can’t test balancing in a beta. Unless of course they make a special program specificly for the beta to edit balancing, which again is quite an expense on a two, three week long period on an outdated beta version.
> Most importantly People love betas getting to play the game early is a great thing and there is no better way to build up hype than a opened beta
Early access isn’t the purpose of a beta. And no, there are other ways to build hype, better ways. Such as a “demo”. Which can be released before the game is released to be early access, and functions as a demonstration of the game for those who are unsure if they want to buy it or not.
They should have a beta. It is a great way and possibly one of the best ways to bug test and server test before the game comes out. Having thousands of players online and testing will help find bugs that no QA team would find in a long time.
> They should have a beta. It is a great way and possibly one of the best ways to bug test and server test before the game comes out. Having thousands of players online and testing will help find bugs that no QA team would find in a long time.
This. Players found tons of glitches within Halo 4’s release week. Having all these glitches re-found in Halo 5, will cost us, a part of the population.
> > Well yea. glitches.
> >
> > Was thinking more along the lines of gameplay mechanics and player stats like jump height, hitpoints, movement speed, etc.
> >
> > Be nice if that was uniform when the game came out. And stayed that way.
> >
> > But thats just my 0.02$
>
> Game balance is not a priority during beta. Finding glitches and bugs is. Why? Because a public beta is an older version than that the devs use, they can’t test update an older version with weapon balance updates because then they’re running two different versions of the same game. Which is a waste of resources.
>
> Devs use public betas to hype a game or to stress test servers. Sometimes a few glitches they didn’t notice surfaces but that’s hardly cost worthy. If you spend hundreds of thousands to make a separate public beta than the one you yourself use which is also most of the time only a part of the game, and a few glitches that you didn’t notice surface, then that’s not worth the money.
>
> Balancing has more or less already happened in alpha. Very little is going to change from there.
>
>
>
> > Having a beta is a good thing though.
>
> Cost perspective? Not if the priority is to find glitches. To hype the game? Market campaigns do a better job.
>
>
>
> > A beta isn’t about changing the game, it helps avoids balancing Issues before the game is released
>
> Which rarely happen because they can’t test balancing in a beta. Unless of course they make a special program specificly for the beta to edit balancing, which again is quite an expense on a two, three week long period on an outdated beta version.
>
>
>
> > Most importantly People love betas getting to play the game early is a great thing and there is no better way to build up hype than a opened beta
>
> Early access isn’t the purpose of a beta. And no, there are other ways to build hype, better ways. Such as a “demo”. Which can be released before the game is released to be early access, and functions as a demonstration of the game for those who are unsure if they want to buy it or not.
343 are funded by Microsoft I’m sure the cost is not a big deal, I don’t see why you are against it. Fans get to play the game early, provide feedback and gives us a better idea of the game than just trailers.