PDA

View Full Version : BS: Pacific Needs Beta Then Demo



LORD BLACKFIRE
15th Jun 2008, 23:11
Keir, betas seem to be all the rage over the last 16 months. I know we've had Shadowrun, Halo 3, Battlefield: Bad Company, and Tom Clancy's EndWar starts tomorrow (I'm a beta tester for that - got into the others mentioned as well).

Electronic Arts has done an impressive job with both the beta and demo. From the beta they learned that some weapons weren't balanced right and players didn't like taking so much damage from jumping off low heights. They fixed both and other things. They also discovered people were unhappy conquest mode had been removed from the game. They're adding it back in as a patch shortly after launch for free. EA also cancelled plans to charge extra for certain weapons after the huge outcry.

With the demo they are stress testing the servers and finding they need more servers to handle the lag issue.

Eidos needs to do something similar with BS: Pacific - a beta to hammer out gameplay kinks and a demo to both promote the game and further work on network code over Xbox Live.

EndWar isn't due out until October and the beta starts tomorrow 3-4 months before the game's release. Halo 3 had a similar gap in time. Battlefield: Bad Company only gave themselves about 6 to 8 weeks between beta and release.

If this game is coming out 1st quarter of next year Eidos needs to consider a beta soon so it can be implemented. November through December will be bad due to the holiday season.

xgamerms999
16th Jun 2008, 17:44
What ever gets us more playing time and a better game right?


It goes without saying that I'm in.

Arrow
17th Jun 2008, 02:28
Every anticipated game needs a demo.

Therefore every game needs a demo.

Therefore Battlestations Pacific needs a demo.

David603
17th Jun 2008, 04:17
Every anticipated game needs a demo.

Therefore every game needs a demo.

Therefore Battlestations Pacific needs a demo.
Well, I've read in one of the previews that there will be a demo out before the full game, but a beta would be much better, since when you get a demo its usually to late to make significant gameplay changes.

chip5541
17th Jun 2008, 04:28
Every anticipated game needs a demo.

Therefore every game needs a demo.

Therefore Battlestations Pacific needs a demo.


A circle of life type of thing :D

Colosseum
17th Jun 2008, 05:36
Don't count on them releasing a beta... I think a demo is all we're going to get.

M0n3y
17th Jun 2008, 10:04
i'm up for the idea too
first beta (then maybe some improvements), then a demo (then even more improvements) and then the final game (then patches and stuff)

Arrow
17th Jun 2008, 12:20
Patches are the most important thing, IMO. Not all games have a demo (though they should) but I would gladly get Battlestations Midway again if Eidos swore they'd release patches for it.

David603
17th Jun 2008, 12:30
A beta could eliminate many of the problems that otherwise need to be patched.

LORD BLACKFIRE
17th Jun 2008, 13:30
Betas are like letting somebody proofread your paper for you. I know I can write a paper, stare at it, go over it multiple times, and never see several typos and other errors. Sometimes you just can't see your own mistakes because you know your meaning and your brain fixes those errors subconciously.

I started the EndWar beta test yesterday and something popped out right away to me. Later I went to the private message boards to report my issue and I found many threads on the same topic. It was something the designers had just overlooked.

As much criticism as EA gets, I'm very impressed with how many changes they made to Battlefield: Bad Company between the beta and demo. Most of them were damage tweaks (rockets, falling, etc.) but some were also control issues like on the helicopters. Now they are doing a very good job of using the demo to measure the demand for servers and latency issues.

I really encourage Eidos to do a beta of BS:Pacific. It would only help polish what we all want to be a great game.

Colosseum
19th Jun 2008, 15:21
They're not going to, though... BSP is such a niche game that a beta, while it would get a lot of guys like us who are interested, just wouldn't pull in enough players for an effective beta to happen. Like I said, I think a demo's all we're going to get.

Arrow
19th Jun 2008, 15:41
They're not going to, though... BSP is such a niche game that a beta, while it would get a lot of guys like us who are interested, just wouldn't pull in enough players for an effective beta to happen. Like I said, I think a demo's all we're going to get.

Possible, but releasing a beta for the dedicated players still might be prudent, to ensure balancing and stuff.

On the other hand, if they opt to not go for a beta and go straight for the demo, I'm hoping they'll fix any beta-type errors with patches...so long as the patches keep coming, I don't think it'll make a major difference regardless.

andy3536
19th Jun 2008, 16:11
Beta testing is genrally piontless, most of the feedback from them arrives to late to change the final product, it's just a gimmick to create advertising.

I'd be more interested in them properly supporting the games after release.

It's looks like it's shaping up to be a good game, a demo and beta are unimportant if the games good.

Colosseum
19th Jun 2008, 16:53
andy is right.... take the Halo 3 beta for example. Just a gimmick to get more people to play the final game.

LORD BLACKFIRE
19th Jun 2008, 16:57
andy is right.... take the Halo 3 beta for example. Just a gimmick to get more people to play the final game.

But not true for Battlefield: Bad Company.

Also, Halo 3 was as much to test its network performance as anything. As important as multiplayer is to BS:Midway, BS: Pacific needs to have this down perfect at launcy. A beta would help.

com345
19th Jun 2008, 17:17
as mentioned above a beta would be useful but it isnt important as long as patches are comming (not like BSM!)

but i also would prefer a beta to get things right from the start

Arrow
19th Jun 2008, 17:50
as mentioned above a beta would be useful but it isnt important as long as patches are comming (not like BSM!)

but i also would prefer a beta to get things right from the start

My sentiments exactly.

Harris 3oo
20th Jun 2008, 08:49
A bate would definitely be cool any serious multiplayer game should have a bate set up for the public.

andy3536
20th Jun 2008, 13:34
But not true for Battlefield: Bad Company.

Also, Halo 3 was as much to test its network performance as anything. As important as multiplayer is to BS:Midway, BS: Pacific needs to have this down perfect at launcy. A beta would help.

But any problems reported with the beta wouldn't have been improved with the final product sent out. They just patch it later which they can do from peoples feedback after release anyway.
If i remember rightly Halo 3 was a bigger farse than most as the game went gold while people were still beta testing.

It's just to get people talking about it and adding hipe before release.

LORD BLACKFIRE
20th Jun 2008, 14:20
But any problems reported with the beta wouldn't have been improved with the final product sent out. They just patch it later which they can do from peoples feedback after release anyway.


You're missing what I'm saying. EA & Dice did improve Battlefield: Bad Company between the beta and the game's release. The demo show a lot of changes people complained about in the beta

And let's not forget Eidos' track record with Battlestations: Midway. Has it EVER been patched on the 360? No. Was there a need to patch? Yes - the downloadable map that we PAID extra for cannot be played on the 1080i display setting, unlike all the other maps in the game.

There were other minor issues that could have been tweaked in a patch but Eidos decided to take our money and run in this case. I simply don't have any faith in Eidos giving the developers the time/cash to fix any problems once the product ships.

andy3536
20th Jun 2008, 14:26
You're missing what I'm saying. EA & Dice did improve Battlefield: Bad Company between the beta and the game's release. The demo show a lot of changes people complained about in the beta

And let's not forget Eidos' track record with Battlestations: Midway. Has it EVER been patched on the 360? No. Was there a need to patch? Yes - the downloadable map that we PAID extra for cannot be played on the 1080i display setting, unlike all the other maps in the game.

There were other minor issues that could have been tweaked in a patch but Eidos decided to take our money and run in this case. I simply don't have any faith in Eidos giving the developers the time/cash to fix any problems once the product ships.


Just as EA did it right most don't and won't.
The extra map wouldn't have helped at all either as it wouldn't have been part of any beta being a later release.
Most games companys push games after a beta shows up problems without being fixed or with already known bad prolems with the intention of fixing them later (or not), if they do it right it would be good, but they won't. Just like everybody else (exept EA for battlefield;) )

greywolf55
5th Aug 2008, 17:15
I hope the support is better for this new game. I would love to see a beta test. This way bugs can be ironed out befor the actually full release in the new year. Or a Demo version.

ClarenceTheTorpedoGuy
4th Oct 2008, 11:52
Sure hopes the deom would have a single player mission. It really disappointed me when I spent 4 hours dloading BSM's demo, then not being able to play it coz no one's playing the demo anymore. It was multiplayer and you can't play if you don't have an opponent.

M0n3y
5th Oct 2008, 12:14
Sure hopes the deom would have a single player mission. It really disappointed me when I spent 4 hours dloading BSM's demo, then not being able to play it coz no one's playing the demo anymore. It was multiplayer and you can't play if you don't have an opponent.

i'd like a MP demo and a SP demo :)

dark_angel_7
6th Oct 2008, 07:50
:thumbsup: Agreed

Also an off line demo with a single player campaign and tutorial would help new players like me :)

It3llig3nc3
6th Oct 2008, 13:47
As far as I remember the BS:M demo came out roughly a week or so before the launch date...

I agree with those saying that the demo should be a reasonably simple single player map that builds up apetite for the full version game.

Commander92
7th Oct 2008, 08:28
The sys. requirements should be the same as BS:M for the demo and full game so that those with less powerful machines can run it.

It3llig3nc3
7th Oct 2008, 08:59
Don't dream about having the same sys requirements than for BS:M.
One point that many people made about BS:M that it's graphic was not so good. (I would argue but whatever).
If you look at the videos and screenshots from BS:P you'll notice that the graphic have been improved significantly. Even with the famous IT technology law (a PC with "as of now" decent performance always costs $2000) expect that BS:P will be hungry for resources.
(did you know that BS:M was an original XBOX/PS2 game dressed up for XBOX360 while BS:P is a full XBOX360 game and that is ported to PC...?)

Another famous and problematic consideration is: what does an individual expect as "good performance" for the game? Running it everything maxed out if FULL HD resoulution or it's good enough to have MED settings in 1280x1024. It is a HUGE difference.

Also if you read around every study shows that in these days for full 3D games the bottleneck is the videocard. Even the first versions of the 2 years old Core 2 Duo systems can provide the processing power for decent gaming experience provided that a good videocard sits in your machine.


Overall it's funny that people are going into so much contradiction: they want more units, bigger maps, nicer graphic, better sound, more flexibility, but all that with the BS:M system spec that is 2 years old by now? C'mon guys.


Last but not least: why would the DEMO version of any given game have different system spec than the full version (maybe on HDD size there can be a difference). Full 3D games' performance is primariy determined by the capacity of the graphic engine - one thing that you can rest assured is the same in DEMO&FULL unless the DEVs are out of their mind... :D
What you can expect that normally on the SAME config the full version would run SMOOTHER and better since all the optimization is done in full and also the videocard manufacturers are providing updates for their drivers improving the game's performance month by month...

raston
7th Oct 2008, 11:41
Overall it's funny that people are going into so much contradiction: they want more units, bigger maps, nicer graphic, better sound, more flexibility, but all that with the BS:M system spec that is 2 years old by now? C'mon guys

A point a lot have missed.
More can sometimes be less!
But it can also mean MORE MONEY on upgrades.

M0n3y
8th Oct 2008, 17:10
As far as I remember the BS:M demo came out roughly a week or so before the launch date...

well they're beta testing now so i think we have to wait some time more...

Polarshark
9th Oct 2008, 23:12
pretty sure that the developers or makers of BSP

can do the beta themselves

if they need the hlep

they'll ask for it