Sections

DICE: Primary Battlefield 3 build doesn’t contain beta bugs

Sunday, 16th October 2011 23:31 GMT By Brenna Hillier

The rough edges of the Battlefield 3 beta had already been smoothed in the core build before the test code saw the light of day, DICE has revealed.

“It wasn’t like when things surfaced in the beta we were caught by surprise and started fixing the main game,” creative director Lars Gustavsson told Destructoid at the EB Games Expo this weekend.

“The main game was more or less done. It was more validating what we knew. We just checked our lists of already implemented fixes and said ‘Yeah, yeah we know about that one’ or ‘Oh yeah, that old one.’”

Not that the beta was a waste of time; as well as testing its multiplayer architecture, DICE did record important results.

“There were things we found. The pace of scoring, that people were scoring so quick took us by surprise. A lot of good findings that will make it a better experience,” Gustavsson explained.

The Battlefield 3 beta came under heavy criticism; DICE has since defended it several times, saying players misunderstand what a beta is, and pointing out the code used is an old build.

Gustavsson commented that rather than rushing to meet launch date, DICE has “exceeded” his expectations with the game and intends to continue the developer’s tradition of long post-launch support.

“We have an operations team that has been working since before the beginning of the year with potential post-launch content and plans,” he said.

“If you know DICE from earlier titles, we keep going along the life cycle of a title. So six months from now, it’s just the beginning of a long relationship.”

As to what form this support will take, last week DICE said it has “massive plans” for DLC.

Battlefield 3 releases next week on PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.

Latest

82 Comments

  1. HauntaVirus

    They should have mentioned that before the beta…A lot of people canceled their pre-orders…including me. I’m not a fan of the game either way.

    #1 3 years ago
  2. battletek9

    Wow people are so dumb! I didn’t know people didn’t know what beta means. Smdh @ noobs

    #2 3 years ago
  3. Talkar

    @2
    People has come to expect a beta is a demo, and not a beta. I blame both publishers for actually labeling a lot of demos as a beta, but i also blame the gamers for being ignorant and spoiled.

    #3 3 years ago
  4. muffinmn100

    #1 your a fucktard

    #4 3 years ago
  5. OlderGamer

    If anything it is because this “beta” wasn’t that. It was a older build that was demod. To me a beta is a build that needs work. From bugs, compatiblity issues to gameplay balancing.

    Now DICE is saying that the bugs found in beta were already taken care of. They are saying that before the beta/demo launched the real game was pretty much done, as we would expect a game to be that was going gold in 10days time.

    It was a sloppy demo.

    I stand by what I said earlier, and got blasted for, this wasn’t about beta testing the game. It was a PR move, that backfired, to make players feel special by having them think they mattered and were part of the games development proscess. It was also an attempt to reach across the isle, to CoD players, with a CoD style map, which lacked vehicles, vastness, and any real destruction at all – all things the BF franchise is known for.

    #5 3 years ago
  6. Ireland Michael

    @1 Or maybe you should look up the word “beta” in the dictionary.

    Christ, people’s perosonal laziness sometimes is fucking astounding.

    @5 “If anything it is because this “beta” wasn’t that. It was a older build that was demod.”

    It was a beta. It was labelled as such. They announced fixes to the game based on problems noticed during said beta. There is nothing here that is hard to understand.

    “It was also an attempt to reach across the isle, to CoD players, with a CoD style map, which lacked vehicles, vastness, and any real destruction at all – all things the BF franchise is known for.”

    So the franchise isn’t allowed to step outside of its pre-defined boundaries in the slightest way whatsoever? You know what happens when you do that to a series? You end up with Call of Duty.

    Metro was something a little different. But the assumption that it’s “like CoD” is fucking ridiculous. The *huge* map starts up with a wide open battle for the COM points, before heading into a tight and enclosed space, which varies things up and makes for a difference feel for strategy – pushing your way past the choke points – before heading outside again to a location with lots of vertical approaches for targeting.

    Now please, tell me how any of that sounds anything like Call of Duty. The map itself is three or four times larger than anything you’ll ever see in CoD, and the game-mode doesn’t even exist in CoD either.

    And it’s *one* map.

    #6 3 years ago
  7. HauntaVirus

    My bad, you could have been a bit less cruel though.

    #7 3 years ago
  8. Ireland Michael

    @7 Cruel? The word beta has a definition. Cancelling your pre-order based on a beta makes no sense.

    What if there had been no beta at all? What if it had just been released without any play preview at all?

    #8 3 years ago
  9. triggerhappy

    @ Michael: No need to be so horrible man.

    #9 3 years ago
  10. xxJPRACERxx

    Normally when you test a beta you receive updates and you must use the latest build to do the testing. It would have been better for DICE to send beta testers the latest build of the client. This way they can still test and update the server side and receive reports from the testers about the client. If a more up-to-date build was available why using an old one?

    After playing with this buggy client on that so-so Metro map I’m not sure if I’ll get the game now. I think I’ll wait for a sale.

    #10 3 years ago
  11. endgame

    well whoever thought that a BETA was a final product who is suppose to work w/o any glitches then u’re a definite retard. (idk how u survive in the world.) even more with THIS beta. everyone decent BF fan knew that the code was that of an alpha version.

    #11 3 years ago
  12. Night

    The beta wasnt really about the beta build, it was more of a server stress test.

    #10 if you did notice battlelog was updated during the beta a couple of times ;)

    #5 of course they gave us a CoD style, in a curtain way. Wrong.. You apprently dont play alot of BFBC2.. Of course they want some of the CoD players, and they will get some of them. Without a shadow of a doubt. You people that have canceled your pre-order. Is it just because you been hyped up so much, that even if it was the best beta/game in the history of man, you still would be disappointed.. For the people who tried Caspian Border, now that was a real BF map, maybe the flags were close, but come on. Because they are, they is action all the time, and not just once in a while.

    #12 3 years ago
  13. DiodeX

    If anyone has played any of the previous BF games, you know that BF3 won’t be shit, not perfect but what game is?
    This will take me back to BF2 on the PC, epic games had there, but this time I’ll have to slum it on the 360, but it’ll be fun never the less.
    And they always look to tweak the game to fix it, I’m looking forward to this very much.

    Maybe people should stop whining so much and enjoy their games instead of looking for faults.
    I did suffer from falling through the world map a few times. but I’m sure it’ll/has been be fixed

    #13 3 years ago
  14. GwynbleiddiuM

    All in all, I’ll have my BF3 soon. I just hope it’s as solid as DICE is claiming to be.

    #14 3 years ago
  15. viralshag

    People are just strange when it comes to this game. Everything we have seen so far about the game makes it look pretty amazing. So much so that a lot of people pre-ordered.

    Then they play a beta and complain about bugs… and then try their hardest to make out that this is a demo. And then say that DICE are to blame, because people wanted the beta to be a demo… They are angry, because the dev has done something properly by giving players a beta and not a demo.

    I honestly don’t think it was as bad as people make out. Even compared to other games out there, the beta was still impressive on the PC. Despite the few bugs, the game looks great, and for the most part played really well.

    #15 3 years ago
  16. GrimRita

    It’s a tough one. DICE should have really stated that the code was old and an open beta was released to ‘stress test’. But this has been a total PR disaster from the start.

    I cancelled my pre-order not because of the bugs in beta, simply because I dont see ANY point to using EAs spyware – Origin to play the game, when Battlelog does everything instead.

    This over on IGN made me laugh – “If there’s someone who’s never played Battlefield before, then we’d definitely load up a level like Caspian Border, have them sit down and look at the mayhem of a 64-player server,” grinned Gustavsson. (http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/120/1200604p1.html) *note on the PS3 IGN site(!).

    He is right, which is why beta should have been Caspian Border from the start.

    #16 3 years ago
  17. spikefail

    This is not Call of Duty, they both are very different games.

    @16 Why preorder on PC?

    #17 3 years ago
  18. viralshag

    @ Grim, It doesn’t matter what map they used though which is why the “they should have used CB map” point is irrelevant. It was, at the end of the day, a beta. And Metro serves as a much better map on which to test a variety of issues.

    People should get over this whole “it was a demo and not a beta” thing. And I very much doubt that it has been a “PR disaster”, you have to remember that unhappy gamers are generally more vocal, and smaller in number. I imagine if you asked everyone that played the beta, you would have an overall positive response than negative.

    That’s all speculation of course but I think there’s some truth in it.

    #18 3 years ago
  19. GrimRita

    @17
    I’m not a console gamer and never will be.

    @18
    If you are looking to win new fans to BF(which EA/DICE are and mostly away from CoD), then you need to show why Battlefield is better. BF is famed for its big maps and vehicles. If you want something smaller and tight, look at Bad Company 2 – which Metro feels like in almost every way.

    Lots of forums are littered with people who dont know the difference between beta and a demo – which is why this has turned into a PR disaster. They simply didnt communicate their message across about stress testing, if that was the case. And it has been a nightmare, hence why suddenly all they can talk about is how old the code was for beta and that its not the final game.

    #19 3 years ago
  20. viralshag

    @19, People being confused over what a beta is and isn’t hardly strikes me as something that DICE can be blamed for. I would go as far to call it complete ignorance in a lot of cases considering how many people in those forums and on sites like this are quite happy to explain what a beta is.

    The fact it’s in the title “Battlefield 3 Beta” and not “Battlefield 3 Demo” should be enough for people to know it’s not a demo. And yeah, maybe they are backtracking in what they are saying about the demo but again, is that because they got it wrong or because people are just making such an unnecessary hullabaloo about it.

    I’m sorry, but if gamers find their way on to forums to complain about a demo/beta, I find it hard to believe they don’t know what a beta actually is.

    #20 3 years ago
  21. OrbitMonkey

    This Is what happens when people fall off the hype train. Their is no confusion over beta/demo. For months gamers were being spoonfed the idea that BF3 would be drippimg with awesome sauce.

    So finally when that beta came out the expectation was palpable, guys & girls didn’t care it was a beta. IT’S BF3!! IT’LL BE GR8!! EA PROMISED!!

    & what did they get? Well basically a long narrow, dull looking, snipe-fest of a map, WITH NO JETS :(

    Hence the lashback.

    #21 3 years ago
  22. OlderGamer

    I am pretty much done. However let me try one last time to put this into perspective.

    I am a writter. I am written stageplays, scripts, shorts, novels, poems, etc. Yes I know I have no grasp of mechanical structure, spelling or grammer, and yes I apreciate the irony, and a good word procsessing program along with a patient editor. But…

    If I have a story that I am testing out. And I am looking for feedback. …from an audiance. What build would I use? One that was months old, outdated and already changed in several meaningful ways? Or the newest version, complete with the latest revisions?

    Thats one of the biggest reasons I hang up on the word Beta. Many of the would be issues that testers would have concern over, have already fixed/changed. But, OG, they stress test the servers.

    Maybe. But wouldn’t a demo have done the samething?

    Much of what I have been saying is supported by statements from DICE for goodness sake.

    ““It wasn’t like when things surfaced in the beta we were caught by surprise and started fixing the main game,” creative director Lars Gustavsson told Destructoid at the EB Games Expo this weekend.”

    And:

    ““The main game was more or less done. It was more validating what we knew. We just checked our lists of already implemented fixes and said ‘Yeah, yeah we know about that one’ or ‘Oh yeah, that old one.’””

    So I ask again what were they testing? What peice of video game code was being tested? Little or none. Now if something unexpected poped up, I am sure it got looked at, as it would in a final build of any game.

    IMO, the beta consisted of outdated code that had already been changed, reworked, and evolved into something different. There was no need to beta that build at all. The only sliver of testing I could see was to judge gamers reactions to the Metro map. Over all i don’t think Dice enjoyed the maps reception as evidenced by also releasing CB map as well as a but load of video showing what many BF fans would consider a more traditional BF gameplay experience.

    End of.

    And I agree Michael, you were being a bit bullish. I am on your xbl/psn friendslist. We haved played games(one of them being BFBC2) together, and we also make it a point to trade back and forth on online lreaderboards. You of all people should know that I am not trolling or whining. At the very least its ok to agree to disagree.

    For the record, I had no intentions of picking up my preorder. I hadn’t yet driven to the store to physicly cancel it yet. However at a family function, i found out that a couple of brother in laws are getting the game, and were even willing to buy me a copy of the game. None of us have a lot of money right now, but I would rather me buy it then have them spend their limited cash on getting it for me. So i am still wrestling with that one. I may end up buying for that reason. I doubt the whole game will be bad. Prolly pretty good infact. It is just that when you have limited funds, you have to make choices and trimming the fat away is a must. I can think of games in the next 12 months that I would enjoy more then BF3. Add that to lack luster experience I had with the Beta/Demo thingie and you can see my hesitence in buying. I never said anyone else couldn’t/shouldn’t buy it. And I never put anyone down for enjoying something I didn’t.

    #22 3 years ago
  23. G1GAHURTZ

    The CoD4 beta took players away from Halo and sold a whole lot more copies.

    I for one, almost certainly wouldn’t have bought CoD4 without playing the beta.

    It’s obvious that EA were trying to do something similar here…

    Big problem, though, is that while the CoD4 beta only had a handful of issues, the BF3 beta comes across as more of a pre alpha bug-fest, so they’re having to worry about pre-order cancellations instead!

    I don’t believe that the RC build will be free from the beta bugs.

    No chance.

    #23 3 years ago
  24. G1GAHURTZ

    If I have a story that I am testing out. And I am looking for feedback. …from an audiance. What build would I use? One that was months old, outdated and already changed in several meaningful ways? Or the newest version, complete with the latest revisions?

    No need to explain yourself, OG.

    It’s DICE who are coming out with the nonsensical waffle.

    No-one releases a broken version of their game to the public except amateurs. If they expect people to believe that they would do such a thing, then they don’t deserve your money.

    At the very most, all any dev would do is a closed beta, where they would have people under strict NDA’s and have some sort of list of known issues, as is the norm.

    #24 3 years ago
  25. viralshag

    There’s plenty of nonsensical waffle here to easily match anything DICE have come out with.

    #25 3 years ago
  26. Erthazus

    G1GA, shut your fanboyish trap about COD 4 and what EA or DICE should do or what they copy.

    DICE everytime makes a beta since Battlefield 1942

    Everytime there are bugs + problems and especially graphical glitches. BF3 had only graphical glitches because it has a new engine. It’s a big game with giant maps, vehicles, destruction and if someone expect it to be bug free, well, than, good luck guys. If you don’t know what is Beta it’s your only problem.

    But when they release a game it’s a decent build. Same was with Battlefield:BC2 beta and etc. if someone don’t remember it had a lot of glitches.

    Battlefield betas will always contain bugs. Always.
    Battlefield 2142 was a bug free fest, but thats because it is a copy of BF2 in Sci-fi with the same BF2 engine.

    #26 3 years ago
  27. G1GAHURTZ

    @25: Sorry, but nothing here matches the implication that they would intentionally release a broken product to the public and think that it was no big deal.

    That’s on a level all on it’s own.

    #27 3 years ago
  28. freedoms_stain

    Jesus, Mary and Joseph, why am I still reading tripe about why an older build was used?

    The old build was used because that was what they had ready in order to push through certification in time for Sept 29th.

    If they knew about the client bugs what was the point in the beta? Because, as Dice have explained before, the beta was to test the BACK END. Server side stress tests on each platform, that was it.

    Seriously, some of you I’m pretty sure commented on the articles where this was explained. Read below the fucking headline.

    #28 3 years ago
  29. viralshag

    @27, What was “broken” about the game? Considering how much people are complaining about it, they must have spent a fair bit of time in the game experiencing it.

    If people go into a BETA expecting a DEMO and a perfect experience, and then act as if they have somehow been hard done by or lied to because what they actually got was actually a beta, then they need a reality check.

    People are acting like they paid to get into that beta or something.

    #29 3 years ago
  30. G1GAHURTZ

    Battlefield betas will always contain bugs. Always.

    All betas contain bugs. That’s why they’re not called ‘release candidates’.

    However, there is more than one category of bug.

    Betas should not cantain ANY class A bugs.

    A class A bug is a game breaking bug that prevents the user from continuing in the game.

    The BF3 beta was full… no, overflowing with those.

    Class B significantly affects the gaming experience, and class C bugs are purely cosmetic.

    In the development process, the alpha build is used to remove all class A bugs. The beta (closed, open or public) is then used to test and remove all class B and C bugs.

    This beta, no matter what it was supposed to be, or what the correct definition of beta is, was actually something that cost DICE sales.

    I didn’t do that. CoD didn’t do that. EA/DICE did it all by themselves. I don’t really care if the truth hurts you, but that’s a simple fact.

    #30 3 years ago
  31. G1GAHURTZ

    The old build was used because that was what they had ready in order to push through certification in time for Sept 29th.

    Certification from who?

    #31 3 years ago
  32. GrimRita

    Bad Company 2 released with lots of stupid bugs that MUST have been seen in beta but werent fixed until weeks after.

    I liked some of the bugs in BF3 especially the human jets…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUYoItEjfKc

    haha

    #32 3 years ago
  33. Ireland Michael

    @22 What were they testing? Uuuh… everything? The whole point of an open beta is to test problems that can *only* occur in live gameplay.

    Code is not this simple thing that just “works”. Half of these bugs would not occur under closed testing, and that’s why open betas exist at all.

    And they posted numerous lists of things they fixed based on feedback from the beta, so any assumptions that it *wasn’t* for testing are null and void.

    @31 Microsoft and Sony, obviously.

    #33 3 years ago
  34. G1GAHURTZ

    @29:

    Seriously?

    Go to any BF3 related forum and take your pick from the mountain of reported issues.

    I agree that a beta is not a demo, and that the two should not be confused. However, any wet behind the ears marketing graduate will tell you that people don’t care about such definitions.

    They want a perfect product, and a taster, no matter how it’s labelled, should be a perfect sample of that perfect product.

    Surely EA, with all of their big money marketing professionals and wealth of experience should know that.

    #34 3 years ago
  35. Phoenixblight

    This was a Beta and this is an example of people expecting a demo out of it which is just wrong. And using older build has two benefits; 1) Stress testing the game. 2) Regression testing where the developers are seeing if all the bugs in this build are not current in the final build and that’s exactly what this was.

    Most of the time developers outsource to other countries to do regression testing but people wanted to try the game so DICE got to do it for free.

    If people can’t understand the word ‘testing’ than there are bigger issues than how BF3 was marketed.

    #35 3 years ago
  36. G1GAHURTZ

    @31 Microsoft and Sony, obviously.

    Really?

    And the PC version?

    Who was certifying that?

    #36 3 years ago
  37. freedoms_stain

    @30, I didn’t play much of the beta, but I encountered zero bugs in what I played of the ps3 version.

    The way some people talk about it, including the terminology you’re using, had me expecting the game to be unplayable, but I played several rounds without witnessing anything that could be remotely conceived as a bug, which leads me to believe they’re not quite as common or as game breaking as some would lead you to believe.

    @31, the Platform holders who are not EA owned.

    #37 3 years ago
  38. Phoenixblight

    @36

    There is no certification process for the PC its a free market however they have to make sure that the GPU manufactures and their drivers are compatitable so you have that process.

    #38 3 years ago
  39. Ireland Michael

    @36 They obviously wanted the same build on all formats.

    And Caspian Border seemed to be extremely stable from all reports I heard.

    #39 3 years ago
  40. viralshag

    @34, “Go to any BF3 related forum and take your pick from the mountain of reported issues.”

    Good for them. They’re doing exactly what you’re supposed to do in a beta. Reporting the problems. Haha. It’s so ridiculous, “MAN, THIS BETA IS SO BUGGY. U KNOW WHAT IMA DO… I’M GO AND TELL THIS DEV EXACTLY WATS RONG WITH IT. THAT WIL RELY SHOW THEM!”

    I spent a good number of hours in the beta and came across very few problems. Non that I can remember that stopped me actually playing the game. And yeah, just because I had a good experience doesn’t mean others didn’t but on the flip side just because some people had a bad experience doesn’t make the game a complete failure like some are making out.

    #40 3 years ago
  41. Ireland Michael

    The only bug I encountered while playing the beta myself was the weird Kill Cam glitch where it ended up in some weird outside the map location. That was about it.

    A lot of this stuff, like falling through maps, is usually server side problems caused due to excessive pressure being put on the servers… you know, the whole damn point of the beta…

    #41 3 years ago
  42. Fin

    |doesn’t make the game a complete failure like some are making out.

    The game, no. The demo/beta as a PR exercise to generate more sales, yes.

    #42 3 years ago
  43. viralshag

    @42, My bad. Even so, it still doesn’t make the beta a failure. We will all see when the game launches anyway. I’m sure we will all hear about how all the bugs are there and it’s such a shock bla bla bla.

    And while all the sad people are complaining about it, most of the others will just be enjoying another good Battlefield game.

    #43 3 years ago
  44. Fin

    @43

    From a marketing perspective, the beta was a failure. Regardless of whether the players are right or wrong in their expectations, it was a buggy mess that made more people question their pre-order than rush out and make one (I’ve no data to back that up, it’s a general feeling).

    From a technical perspective, I imagine the beta was a success. Load testing is something that’s very hard to get right without real players, so the game should be a lot better for it. The bugs that people found would’ve been positive too – even if DICE said they knew about them all, there must’ve been some they didn’t.

    #44 3 years ago
  45. viralshag

    @44, It would have been a failure if they had said, “come and try the demo”. But they didn’t, from the get go it was a beta and so if anything, they labelled it correctly. You can’t base the feedback of what is most likely a small number of people compared to the thousands that have pre-purchased it.

    Even taking this site as a small focus group, I would say the people that are for and against the beta being bad is somewhat even if not more in favour of it not being a failure.

    If this had been called anything but a beta it would be a marketing failure but that’s not the case. Just because people are moaning about a beta means absolutely nothing. Mostly because you have forums about almost any game with people moaning about something concerning the game, and usually for a released product.

    I bet you anything, if the reviews launch to good scores, all this beta nonsense will be quickly forgetten. That’s what I’m waiting to see.

    #45 3 years ago
  46. OrbitMonkey

    People wouldn’t be moaning about these bugs half as much If the beta had been fun.

    #46 3 years ago
  47. YoungZer0

    @40: There’s a difference between reporting and complaining. People complained more than they reported. Feedback, in order to be relevant for the devs players need to include information like specs, settings, situation, what they did before they got into this situation, if it is repeatable.

    #47 3 years ago
  48. Fin

    @45

    Look, you don’t seem to understand (nor do a lot of people on this site).

    It doesn’t matter what DICE called it, or what it was. People expected something of a demo quality, and didn’t get it. You can defend DICE all you want, call the people stupid, that doesn’t matter, the damage is done.
    You can’t use what it was intended to be as a measure of success, you have to use what it was received as.

    If you honestly thing more people played the beta and were swayed into buying it than swayed out of buying it, then the beta was a success. I don’t think that’s true though – anyone who was on the fence would be more likely not to buy based on the beta (buggy, not terribly fun, shit map, etc). And, again, it doesn’t matter if they expected a demo and DICE gave them a beta. The horse has already bolted.

    I’ve no doubt if the reviews are good people will go buy the game. That’s not the issue. My experience of the beta made it go from a “Day 1, definite” to a “Wait for reviews”, I’d say I’m not the only one in that regard – from reading forums and such, some even went from day 1 to “cancel preorder”.

    #48 3 years ago
  49. LOLshock94

    bugs or no bugs the game doesnt play like battlefield

    #49 3 years ago
  50. viralshag

    @48, And I’m sure that this “disaster” of a few cancelled pre-orders based on a buggy beta will have DICE and EA shaking in their boots with worry.

    If the game launches to mediocre reviews, that will be somewhat of a disaster. However, until that time I’m sure they’re pretty satisfied with the way things are going. Despite a few complaints about a bad beta experience.

    Additional: I’m not even defending DICE or EA. I’m simply stating the facts: this was a beta, this was for testing, this worked perfectly fine for me.

    All this stuff about “damage being done” and the that DICE didn’t do enough to clarify what they were releasing is based on some forums. I will wait until the game comes out, the reviews are in and we get an idea of how successful it was before I start speculating on what “damage” has been done.

    #50 3 years ago
  51. GrimRita

    @51 no one will dare give BF3 mediocre reviews. Their advertising spend has guaranteed at least a 9/10 and probably when the game is released next week, all this talk of beta/not beta will be forgotten.

    Clearly DICE/EA ARE worried because they are still discussing it a couple of weeks on – damage limitation? you betcha!

    #51 3 years ago
  52. viralshag

    @51, You would expect them to say nothing about the beta then?

    #52 3 years ago
  53. Fin

    @50

    I didn’t mention the preorders being a “disaster” (though it’s a bad sign), or that DICE didn’t do enough to clarify (I know the bugs’ll be fixed, I didn’t need to be told that, but somebody in DICE obviously thought they had to say something).

    Betas (on the non-technical public side, especially on consoles, and so close to release) are about building positive buzz (so people talk to their friends about the game, increasing sales) and building preorders. The majority of buzz I’ve seen about the beta has been lamenting the bugs, the choice of map, the gameplay, etc. That’s not positive.

    For that to be the main topic of conversation about BF3 two weeks from release is in no way a good indication, and to me, WAIT FOR IT, means the beta failed to build positive enthusiasm.

    #53 3 years ago
  54. stagga

    A lot of interesting points on here, some by people either in the games industry or knowledgeable enough to know what they’re talking about (G1GAHURTZ,OlderGamer) and then there’s the mindless fanboys who’ll argue a point no matter how wrong they are- oh hello there “Ireland Michael” Look up beta in a dcitionary? Did you? “the second letter of the greek alphabet” ah, right then.
    Actually as someone who knows full well what a beta in games industry terms is (something the dictionary fails to specify), I can’t see any way that this was a good move on Dice’s part. As Old Gamer has already made clear you don’t release something this broken so close to release. When you go for an interview you don’t show them your old, unfinished work in the hope they’ll see the potential- you present your stuff in the best possible light. It’s all very well explaining that it’s an old build and the people who read these gaming forums may well understand that but ultimately this has likely done them harm.

    Personally I didn’t cancel my pre-order since I’ve played enough BF to know that it’ll be alright eventually, and the Caspian Border map made up for the disappointment of Metro (but console gamers didn’t get to try it and it constantly crashed my brand new PC!) but only a fool would try to defend this strategy.

    #54 3 years ago
  55. Ireland Michael

    @54 Then your dictionary must be about 50 years out of date.

    Your smartass remarks doesn’t do anything to change the fact that the word beta, when used in the context of a game, have a specific definition.

    And what is that definition? It is USER TESTED software, following on from the (imaginatively named) alpha stage. Nothing more, nothing less.

    There is nothing to dictate how many bugs may or may not exist in any stage, especially if those bugs are caused by live stress testing. There is no way to catch those bugs without doing so. All that matters is that they are resolved for the final release.

    Cancelling a pre-order because of bugs in a beta is stupid. Now, if you simply didn’t enjoy it, that’s completely understandable, but if someone cancelled it because a beta had bugs (if they didn’t, we wouldn’t need them in the first place) they’re still an ignoramus.

    #55 3 years ago
  56. Fin

    @55

    Here, if we’re going to be pedantic, we should at least get it right.

    Beta is not user tested software. Beta is feature complete software.

    #56 3 years ago
  57. Ireland Michael

    No, beta *is* user tested software. And rarely is it “feature complete”. It just has to be able to work on a technical level. Which Battlefield 3 did.

    The type of game goes a long way in dictating how many “users” you need to test something. A single player game? Get some game testers. An MMO? You need as many as you can get!

    #57 3 years ago
  58. freedoms_stain

    So if a “beta” is a feature complete bug free version of the software, what the hell is a release candidate? And what the hell is a final release? Because this feature complete bug free version of “beta” seems to be all-encompassing now.

    #58 3 years ago
  59. Fin

    @57
    No that’s not what it means.
    Alpha is user tested. Beta is user tested. RC is user tested. Gold is user tested.

    Beta is meant to mean feature complete.

    @58
    Beta is in no way bug free.

    RC is a build you send to QA thinking its ok, but QA often find stuff you couldn’t have predicted. Final release is one that passes QA.

    #59 3 years ago
  60. Ireland Michael

    @59 No it *isn’t*. Features are added during betas *all the damn time*.

    #60 3 years ago
  61. stagga

    Er…no Ireland Michael. Beta IS supposed to be feature complete. Alpha should be playable from start to end but may still include white/greybox elements, but even that SHOULD be feature complete. Beta should be pretty damn near finished but might still contain bugs or require polish. My smart arse comments are based on 7 years games industry experience, what are yours based on?

    Also I was never arguing that the BF3 beta wasn’t just that. My point was releasing that build, regardless of what they called it, damaged their product appeal in the eyes of many consumers.

    #61 3 years ago
  62. Ireland Michael

    “Beta should be pretty damn near finished but might still contain bugs or require polish”

    Which the Battlefield 3 beta was.

    Even if it wasn’t, your definition of beta is only true in *your* fantasy world of deluded self entitlement anyway.

    #62 3 years ago
  63. G1GAHURTZ

    In 8 years in the games industry (until 2009), working on 10 or more titles, I’ve NEVER ever heard of any single game getting “features” after the beta stage.

    Features are developed and scheduled during the design phase of the project, and NOT added at the end.

    In fact, if anything, they’d be removed, because there’s not enough man hours left in the project to get them working properly.

    Maybe you need to work on your terminology, Michael.

    Fin is correct. The game needs to be “user tested” from the start. NOT one or two years down the line once you’ve hit beta.

    #63 3 years ago
  64. freedoms_stain

    O’Conner is right, in a way, the definition of beta has been stretched somewhat over time.

    Google referred to many of their products as beta for years adding new features progressively, Minecraft is still said to be in beta and adds new features regularly. It’s not a brand new concept he pulled out his arse.

    #64 3 years ago
  65. stagga

    Told you G1GAHURTZ was pro ;) You can tell who actually knows what they’re talking about by the things they write. On the other hand I myself am living in a fantasy world of deluded self entitlement so what do I know? Not sure why I fantasised about weeks of crunch instead of the Swedish women’s volleyball team though, I must be truly insane….

    #65 3 years ago
  66. Fin

    @64

    The definition has been stretched in some industries, but not in the full-price games industry.

    #66 3 years ago
  67. M. K.

    `Cancelling a pre-order because of bugs in a beta is stupid.`

    I canceled it after the beta, but not only because of the bugs. The game isn’t even nearly ready to be sold, no matter which build it is. No proper chat, no player lists, bad netcode, sub 30 fps etc. (I could go on, withount mentioning bugs :()

    Sure, the 360 hardware is far away from being good, but the performance was just sad..

    #67 3 years ago
  68. OlderGamer

    One of my arguements is that the very word Beta is missused and overused. In this case, I believe it was being used as a PR stunt. I believe the sense that gamers were connected to the actual dev aspect of the game was used to make the gamers feel empowered.

    I have tested a lot of games. I did prealpha work on Meridian59 back in the early/mid 1990s(it was a MMORPG running on a Doom Engine, published by 3DO). And I have been involved in a lot of testing(whenever I could get in tbh – I enjoy doing it). One of the largest reasons I say this Beta felt more like a sloppy demo was the time frame.

    Follow me for a sec.

    Old build, already discarded, containing several known issues. given the time it takes for a game to go gold, get pressed, get shipped and be ready to be on store shelfs, there was very little chance anything from the Beta Build was going to get altered for the retail build. For the most part, imo, DICE already had their retail build when the beta build went live. Thats why I poised the question what in the beta build were they testing?

    Server side issues, absolutly.

    But they could have also done that with a more recent build…as a full fledged demo. However I have read several devs say that they hate doing demos. Many of the reasons range from time and man hour costs, to distractions, to the fact that many gamers will pass on buying the game in order to just play one or two levels of the demo.

    I believe Dice quickly slaped together a stable older build of the game, called it a beta, and stuck it out there.

    Call it whatever you want.

    We know that Beta is often used as a PR stunt, and even a sales tactic. I’d like to play Starhawk, and the beta invite is packaged into uncharted3. Recently, Halo held their Reach Beta. But in the case of reach, the game was relitivly bug free and played pretty smooth. I know a lot of gamers that were sold on Reach after they played the beta.

    The word Beta is indeed often over and missused. But by more then just gamers. The industry does it themself too. It is no wonder gamers confuse the word beta and demo, and no wonder they expect similer performance out of each one.

    Personaly, I know very well what a beta is, or at least what it has always been upto recent memory. BF3s beta just felt all kinds of wrong to me, it is semantics for sure, but imo, it is hard to call what we played a beta test. Esp when the games launch was a mere two weeks from the games beta.

    But a couple of these posts are spot on, regaurdless of what it was called, I don’t think Dice is very happy with the way things went. I hope they don’t do the whole “beta” thing again. Or if they do, at least release your Beta a few months before the game comes out. I have a very hard time believing that anything feedback wise from the beta would make it into the retail version.

    Now a day one patch? Maybe. All I can say there, is I hope they test that patch before they release it.

    #68 3 years ago
  69. viralshag

    Good lord. Still going at it.

    At the end of the day who really gives a toss. Beta or not a beta. Buy it or don’t buy it. It’s only a little while longer until everything becomes clear and people either have a copy or they don’t.

    It was a great beta for me. Everything worked and the game seems to be shaping up nicely. For all the people that had problems, well, your computers are obviously crap and you didn’t pay enough respect to the Battlefield Gods. Blame yourself. 8)

    #69 3 years ago
  70. freedoms_stain

    OlderGamer, just read this, http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2011/10/03/battlefield-3-open-beta-update-2.aspx##

    not just the headline, but the whole thing.

    VG247 reported on it btw, the article is linked in the related posts box http://www.vg247.com/2011/10/05/dice-defends-battlefield-3-beta-from-critics/

    Still confused as to what the beta was for and why the code is as old as it is? I’ll happily read it aloud and send it to you in the audio format of your choice. How does that sound? I’ve been told I’m very intelligible for someone from central Scotland.

    #70 3 years ago
  71. OrbitMonkey

    Kotick must be pissing himself with glee over this…

    Kotick- Please lord let me Twitter some pisstake of their beta!!

    Satan- No my faithful minion, take the moral highground… BWAH HAHAHA!!

    #71 3 years ago
  72. DSB

    All those assurances would actually mean something if they hadn’t messed it up once before though. To their credit they did manage to clean up BC2 within a month, but that was also after a lengthy beta that left people worried.

    Granted, the beta is a lot better this time, but I also didn’t run into any of the unpleasant bugs of BC2 when I played that beta.

    #72 3 years ago
  73. OlderGamer

    Freedom, I saw that website .

    And everything I have said is inline with what DICE stated. You guys understand that when I “asked” what they were testing is was semi rehtorical right? There was nothing in the beta build to test, it was all back end – so called stress testing. And a more polished demo, of say a more traditional fan apreaciated map would have given the same feedback.

    You will also notice that the replys under their statement have more then a few people complaining. Which is what Fin is saying, same here. Call it what ya want alot of folks have voiced their disaprovel with it and the experience they had with it. At the end of the day, that can’t be putting smiles on too many faces at DICE.

    At this point about all that is happening is that whenever someone states that they were unhappy with the Beta, some people jump in there swinging. And that if I or someone else didn’t like the Beta, the reasons must be that we either don’t understand what beta means or that the bugs chased us away, and that again proves that we don’t have a clue about what beta means.

    The list of things I didn’t like is long. Bugs didn’t chase me away, I expect those to be fixed. I do think the bugs prolly chased some people away. I have alwys enjoyed BF games, and left the argueing to people that mostly centered around CoD vs BF. I didn’t enjoy this go around, it doesn’t mean I jumped ship to CoD or am flame baiting or trolling or otherwise coming here to be an ass.

    To me, there are a lot of things done wrong. The Beta promotion was just one of them.

    #73 3 years ago
  74. viralshag

    @Freedom, Seriously, stop spouting all your lies here. There is no one, on this earth, that would knowingly and honestly say that someone from central Scotland is intelligible. :P

    #74 3 years ago
  75. freedoms_stain

    Seriously, if anyone can name a change other than slightly higher damage model that is significantly different from BC2 that doesn’t make the game fairer I’d fucking love to hear it.

    seriously, OG, hit me with it. Because I fucking tell you this right now, there were numerous Infantry-only Rush maps in BC2 and you’re a professed fan of that game.

    #75 3 years ago
  76. OlderGamer

    “there were numerous Infantry-only Rush maps in BC2″

    I might be overlooking them, but what ones? I didn’t buy the Vietnam expansion, if they were in there I wouldn’t know. Or do you mean BF2? I didn’t play that one either. I played BF Modern Combat, BFBC1, BFBC2, and BF1943. I don’t remember rush style infantry only maps.

    Before I tell you a couple things I didn’t like about BF3, let me purpose the question of why does it matter? To you? To anyone? Why must I even defend that I didn’t like it at all? Aren’t we all entitled to what we do or don’t like? So what difference does it make?

    Its funny, I don’t remember demanding why anyone else likes the game just because I don’t.

    The Beta. Ok.

    Metro was the biggest reason. Sure the full game has more maps, but I played the beta and it had Metro. Lets say the game has ten maps, and they rotate, that means Metro is going to cycle thro. I don’t have words for how much I hate that map. I really don’t want to play it.

    Scope aiming weaves back and forth. Not a big fan, it was making me sick, not kidding.

    I want a true and honest Medic class. I don’t like the new class retooling. Imo, med kits and ammor supply shouldn’t be on the same class. I really thought that BFBC had it about right class wise.

    I do not like supressing fire, at all.

    There are other reasons, that range from horizon flicker to mobile spawn spots. But I am getting tired of talking about it. I know I am not the only one not loving the beta experience. And even if I was the only one, it wouldn’t change my opinion.

    #76 3 years ago
  77. freedoms_stain

    @76, White Pass, Nelson Bay, Cold War.

    When I played a lot of BC2 there were lots of maps we didn’t like, quit out on and found a new game. We also do the same in CoD when a map comes up we don’t like, this is a total non-issue.

    Only the high power sniper scopes have sway, you can stop it by using the hold breath button, all other guns have the exact same sway as BC2 – none unless you’re under fire or near an explosion.

    Ammo and med packs aren’t on the same class, Assault have med packs, Support have ammo packs.

    I suppose suppressing fire preference is up to you, but the point is to use it instead of fall victim to it…

    Horizon flicker: didn’t notice it, mobile spawn points: can be destroyed.

    #77 3 years ago
  78. DarkElfa

    Oh my fucking god, everyone needs to STFU and calm down.

    Yes, this was a beta. Yes, people needed to realize that it was a beta and that bugs would be present.

    HOWEVER, EA should NOT have released a build that was so bad off to a group of what they should have know were going to be hungry, judgmental consumers.

    Hell, playing the beta made me completely change my mind on buying it. I’m not. It’s not Battlefield anymore. It’s Battlefield’s attempt at beating CoD on it’s own terms.

    The majority of the things that turned me off in the beta weren’t bugs at all, they were things like GUI choices. Their crappy Battlelog system. The Flashlight annoyance from hell and that every round became sniperville.

    That said, releasing a super bugged beta so close to launch was a bad move on their part and if they didn’t know it, this article wouldn’t exist.

    #78 3 years ago
  79. OlderGamer

    Freedom I am going to go back, if I have time, and look into those maps. I don’t remember any maps that didn’t ‘lest have jeeps, boats, skidoos, snowmobiles, or something. I have seen sections of maps that didn’t have new vehicals, but the vehicals where there on one leg of the rush map or another. They didn’t all have tanks and heli, but I can’t recall a map that didn’t offer something.

    #79 3 years ago
  80. freedoms_stain

    @79, fairy muff, to be entirely precise Nelson Bay has one Quad Bike and Cold War has the legendary Truck of Fail – a flatbed truck that only appears on this map with a max speed of 3 mph and nowhere to go. Forgive me for considering these maps Infantry only with so many vehicles on display… Infantry Focussed may have been a better term.

    The Metro Alpha had an LAV in it, I don’t know whether it’ll return for the final product.

    #80 3 years ago
  81. OlderGamer

    Indeed there are infantry focused maps. But Nelson Bay, first one I checked into, has a UAV and mounted turrets. I am not going to chase my tail(or yours) on every little detail or angle that you bring up. Metro has one bottleneck/choke point. The maps you named are still very open area maps, even without tanks/chopers there is still several strategies for attacking/defending. BF3 Betas console map of choice was extremly limiting.

    Like I said before Freedom, its pretty much semantics. This could be argued day and night – whats good whats not. And most of that comes down to personal taste and prefrence.

    #81 3 years ago
  82. DSB

    I don’t think the problem is with the changes at all, I think it’s become a vastly better game. I do think it’s sad to see the some of the shittier bits from BC2 get carried over as well though.

    And the medics are still a bit on the annoying side for me. That cooldown doesn’t exactly hurt the strategy of pulling a medic train, although the absence of the M60 is a plus no matter how you look at it.

    #82 3 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.