Blog FeedHeroes of Open Betas
Those who read my take on Civilization IV will know that I found the game to be in a state worthy of release… after the first two patches were available. It is my opinion that the game was left unfinished to have it rushed out for sale before Christmas, and only months later have gamers been presented with a more polished product. Of course, this hasn’t been the only example. I’m sure I could give you a long list of examples from EA alone. It’s an ever more common problem, but an interesting reversal happened over the past few weeks which caught my interest.
Now, I’m not too sure as to how many of you are very familiar with the Heroes of Might and Magic series, but it is a series I have played before, and I know it has quite a fan base. The developers are now up to making the fifth installment, and the game recently underwent an open beta. It was in such a poor state (even for a beta) that quite a large movement was initiated by the fans involved to try and make sure the game was delayed, and a quality game worthy of the Heroes name would be assured. SaveHeroes.org was made as the central hub of their efforts, and it appears to have been successful. Ubisoft announced not too long ago that the game would indeed be delayed, after the uproar caused over the open beta and subsequent controversy surrounding the actions taken by the players. Whether or not a petition helps anything is not really the question - but I think putting up enough of a stink, and getting enough media attention, was enough to get things moving.
Now, obviously none of the above would have been possible if Ubisoft did not authorize an open beta in the first place. So, should it be done more often? I think Civ4 could certainly have benefitted from an open beta, and a subsequent delay. CnC Generals could have used a very long delay. But on the other hand, Blizzard games are always well polished, and delayed if necessary. WarCraft 3 was delayed a substantial amount after the developers themselves decided they needed to rework many aspects of the game. What makes the difference between a developer who needs an open beta and one who doesn’t?
12th February | Reply
There is a lot of debate whether or not the fans were the end decision in the delay of the game. With the way things work in game development the fans might have been playing a beta build that was 6 months old. Full Auto’s “new” demo on Xbox Live is actually the same one that was available at E3 2005 full of frame rate issues.
And with the way things work Ubisoft could have been planning on delaying it all along. Publishers and developers are not exactly open. One odd note is that many of the fan sites “threatened” to no longer publish updates about the game unless it was delayed. That seems like an odd tactic.
I personally don’t care how a company refines its product, open beta, internal testers etc. As long as they release it in a solid state. I would think that a good team of internal testers is better than an open beta. I think open betas might mess up priorities for developers. The community does not always know what is “good for them”. In a perfect development cycle a robust open and internal beta would be excellent.
12th February | Reply
Well, the impression I get from Ubisoft’s forum announcement there lends to the idea that the uproar from the fans was largely responsible for the delay. I know there is a lot of controversy surrounding it - some have even suggested the entire SaveHeroes.org movement was done by Ubisoft themselves as a PR move. I think that’s a bit over the top, so I don’t have a problem with taking Ubi’s post at face value.