40 replies to this topic

[Kulyok]

I see these obvious arguments pro and contra:

- an alpha/beta release is good, because you build on the players' feedback;
- but you get the biggest number of downloads during your first release, so chances are your subsequent releases won't be as popular, even though you do improve.

- an alpha/beta release is good, because you see people pointing out bugs and typos to you;
- but they may remember there were typos and bugs, and will reference your mod as such.

- an alpha/beta release is good, because people will play your mod sooner;
- but they may not enjoy a mod that was never thoroughly tested and polished.

Note: an open alpha/beta, not a private one.

[Deathsangel]

As you are well aware I think Kulyok, I release in bits, or else I personally would go crazy if millions of bugs come in and the fact that I am afraid I will take to long for anyone to download.
I agree with the points you bring forward, but I think with a good version history, it shouldn't be too much of a problem, along with a good warning with the first few versions.

[Daulmakan]

I'd go with the full release. All the perks of an open beta can be gained from a private one and all the downfalls of the mod can be polished before the full version is out, so a higher quality mod is delivered to the public, which in turn brings more attention/number of players and possibly more feedback because of it.

I'd like to add that unless an extremely major change takes place in a latter release, a mod's 'success' will probably be capped by the first impression it has on its players. A buggy, unfinished, cohesion-lacking mod will drive away people, even if the idea behind it was promising. Those that like/don't dislike it will focus on 'what could've been' instead of other things, and even if those are taken care of in the next version, the replaying experience won't have the same impact.

If a mod is already more than decent on its open beta, delaying it for a short while in order to perfect the details for a full release won't make much of a difference. Waiting extra time is not really an issue for BG gamers, I believe most of today's mods in progress/on hold have been announced and/or started being worked upon more than years ago, and people are still expecting them (I am, at least).

[Gabrielle]

BETAs and ALPHAs are all good. Sometimes a modder doesn't have the time to play the game, yet again, to test there mod. What better way to test it is by releasing a ALPHA or BETA.

[Jyzabyl]

To each his or her own.
If you don't want to play a alpha/beta wait for a release. If you want to contribute to the process then be a beta tester.

Who's to say what's right for everyone?

[SConrad]

I prefer closed betas and then full releases myself; and it's probably how my mods will be released.

[berelinde]

Hate to say it, but I have to side with Domi on this one. When I had Gavin as a closed alpha I had precious few volunteers for testing. Opening it resulted in a lot more, and some invaluable bug-catching. I don't think I hosed anybody's installation, but I held off on making him compatible with "mega" installations until I knew for sure.

But I guess it depends on your definition of "beta." To me, "beta" means that it's been tested on a bunch of computers that aren't yours, and the more obvious bugs have been caught. It may still contain a few typos or non-game-breaking bugs. A full release means that it has been tested on anybody and everybody's installation and it still works. To me, a closed beta kind of rules that out. I'll probably continue to call something beta long past the point when many modders would call it "version 1."

Please understand here that I'm speaking as a private individual and as a modder, not as staff for SHS. As for SHS policy, that will be determined by the mod hosting committee, not by me alone.

[Gabrielle]

Even though I may release alphas and betas, I will not play those type of mods or install that type of software. I don't want to be someone else's tester. I don't have the patience for bugs, crashes, etc. If it is advertised as a alpha/beta, fine, I'll wait until the full release is done.

[berelinde]

Yeah, I've hosed my installation with an ill-advised download or two.

As long as the mods are identified as alpha/beta, I've got no objections to making them publicly available. There are mods out there in full versions 1, 2, 3, etc. that still require manually setting the console to bypass certain bugs. That tells me it should have stayed in beta a little longer.

Edited by berelinde, 14 July 2007 - 05:13 PM.

[theacefes]

Completely closed alpha for my personal testing, private beta with a small number of testers reporting in a private workroom, and then full release.

I don't like to play public betas because I prefer to focus strictly on the gaming aspect of playing BG rather than waiting in suspense for a bug to emerge that will force me to stop playing.

[the bigg]

I usually prefer the open development process myself - that is, the Unix philosophy of "release early and release often".

However, I don't feel that this works OK with our community because
- 99% of users (me included) ignore the 'alpha' tag and expect a seamless mod. Enough of those people get angry at the modder.
- 99% of modders disappear after the first alpha, leaving a dangling, sucky mod, in the hopes that somebody decides to refine it. Closed beta would be good at avoiding part of the litter mods.

In my case (WeiDU), I keep closed betas, but share the link to the beta with anyone I trust who asks for it, to let them check out whatever they need. I do this because
- auto-updating would be a nightmare if you want to go from 199 to 199+feature1 to 199+feature1+patch1.2 to 200-rc1 to 200 (as we compare the version integer, not the version string).
- I like to reserve the option of breaking backwards compatibility from a beta to another.
- I want to avoid a newbie modder to ship an unlucky version of WeiDU and wreak havoc like v187 did

[Yovaneth]

Although I voted full release, in all truth it depends on the amount of time I have. Currently I'm well screwed for just that small commodity so when I get time to play I don't want to hit a showstopper. I have a background in both programming and QA and have had to reverse-engineer some of the most complex computer systems you ever want to come across (aviation stuff); this gives me a good feel for potential bugs when writing mods. I can't quite describe it but somehow I *know* when I've left a loose end in a piece of dialog or a quest. Consequently, I won't release anything until I believe it to be bug-free (which doesn't mean it *is* bug-free unfortunately - luckily I haven't yet had any problems reported with any of the party co-operation scripts yet). Time will tell if I've got it right when the 'un-named mod' that litters the DLTCEP tutorials masquerading as innocent illustrations gets released later this year.

-Y-

[cmorgan]

What I really, really wish is that we could get all of the folks who write mods to sit down occasionally and beat the ruggs 'til the bugs are toast on eachother's mod (code, not content - just the operationalization).

I know everyone has an opinion on content and such, but as I study you folk's mods, I realize exactly how many very smart, very detail oriented people there are out there and how much I don't know. I wish that there was a way of doing collaborative bugfixing, where each modders work eventually went under the wringer, tightening, fixing, and cleaning up code for eachother and teaching eachother.

When I win the lottery, expect a monthly salary to commence imediately, so that all of you are required to spend 10 hours per month working over each and every mod in the community until he absolute best efort is expended to make things work the way each author intends.

(Told you I dream big).

Edit: oh, the topic... right. Beta releases with enough time to get things fixed. To me, "Alpha" means "Not completed in any meaningful way to an end user, suitable for a small group of friends with willingness to blultly and completely kick my butt." "Beta" means "I think I have fixed most things but am not able to tell what other folks will do to it, so go ahead an play and find out areas that I have not thought throuh completely".

Edited by cmorgan, 18 July 2007 - 05:52 AM.

[Belladonna]

I prefer it to be done. I am not a fan of betas. When I play a game, mod, I expect it to function correctly and not give me many bug issues. All games have bugs, that is to be expected but something that kills the game experience is going to kill my interest in it.

[vilkacis]

I like open betas.

I take "alpha" to mean "not bugchecked at all". Such early versions are probably better off closed, since it's likely too messy to be played "for fun". I don't really think it's necessary to wait for months for a "perfect" version, though. If I play a beta, I do so knowing full well that there may be bugs, and I certainly won't think less of the author if I happen to find some.

Those who want to wait for the final version are free to do so, but I like to have the option.

[Solar's Harper]

I agree with vilkacis, the alpha/beta releases are good for feedback and also getting the feel for on how much potential there is. While having the full release of a good mod is undeniably good, there is always room for improvement somewhere and its these early releases that could considerably help in that matter. It also wouldn't take as much time to correct bugs as it would with a full release, so cost-efficency is my guess.

And yes, the author of the mod wouldn't be thought of any less, except probably by the person that forgot it wasn't the final release or something.

[Sir BillyBob]

Size matters. In a small quest mod, I think you can do a closed beta or test it yourself. But in our case with CA, it is impossible to build without an open beta. I have had to make so many changes due to player gaming styles I didn't expect. Even with our sometimes closed testing, we miss may things that players find for us (good and bad).

Also, a reality point here. Has anyone ever released a "1.0" version and it was bug-free? Of course not. Therefore you are beta testing (or gama testing) your work as soon as players get their hands on it. You can try to tell yourself it isn't beta testing at this point, but lets face it the mod wasn't solid if players report bugs even a year or so later.

[Kulyok]

Also, a reality point here. Has anyone ever released a "1.0" version and it was bug-free?

*raises a hand shyly, twice*