Having a Demo then a Gold Demo

I am appealing to SIGAMES to revert back to the old procedure whereby you guys first introduce a normal demo for us to play then for us to find bugs and issue with the game then introduce a gold demo that hv solved most of the problems.

Its better to have it that way then what is happening now whereby only a gold demo is released then follow by the release of the game. this cause a lot of problems to be found in the gold demo but will not be fixed when the game comes out and a patch will need to be rolled out soon after the release of the game.

This may cause the patch to be rushed and the quality not so good

I agree..........

I'm sure after a couple of years of closed beta still not picking up a wide variety of issues they'll consider an open beta (still 6 month limit) for future releases.

I agree..........

I agree in light of the bugs that are there this year

Why did they stop doing this?

I agree it would be much better this way. Thousands of users on here can spot more bugs than how ever many testers test the game in a closed beta.

The problem we had when we did that previously was that someone leaked it.

I think what we're after is an open beta, so how could someone leak it if it was just a public demo?

The problem we had when we did that previously was that someone leaked it.

Then you have this demo going around that to the uninitiated could be the full game for all they know.........

Whilst there is obvious problems with doing it, I think the number of threads of acknowledged bugs on the bugs forums says that the testing was under-par this time. Wider testing population is one way forward that has worked in other games.

I don't know how many people did closed beta testing, so maybe just extending that would help a bit, but to boost consumer confidence you really need to be shown to address the problem.

Having the whole population testing it is much better than hving a handful of people doing it. Those close beta tester may be given a guideline to play a game. trying out diff features. but there are alot of ppl out there who always try to do funny stuff and tada they found new problems

Pls consider this....

Can't you put out limited versions of games, maybe letting people just play a match or something.

How do you become a Beta tester anyway? Or a moderator? I think they were cloned from real people who were cryogenically frozen! LOL

How do you become a Beta tester anyway? Or a moderator? I think they were cloned from real people who were cryogenically frozen! LOL

If u need to know how to be a mod, you ain't qualify

To be a mod you need to have been here a while, be a good poster, and have no infractions... or very few.

On topic, I suppose a public beta could be released about a month before the game is scheduled to go gold and it would give SI the chance to fix little problems like the Keyboard problems and the bigger problems like the Injuries

I agree with Paul C, but also with others aswell! I can see the point about things getting leaked etc, but i also can see the case for making the testing team open/public!

I agree with Paul C, but also with others aswell! I can see the point about things getting leaked etc, but i also can see the case for making the testing team open/public!

leak what. i don't really understand his statement actually

To be a mod you need to have been here a while, be a good poster, and have no infractions... or very few.

On topic, I suppose a public beta could be released about a month before the game is scheduled to go gold and it would give SI the chance to fix little problems like the Keyboard problems and the bigger problems like the Injuries

It takes more than all you have mentioned to be a mod

The demo would obviously be limited in time, just like the current demo. Are you worried about the current FM09 demo being "leaked" too?

The problem we had when we did that previously was that someone leaked it.

Then you have this demo going around that to the uninitiated could be the full game for all they know.........

Take your point Paul, but how would this be any different to people playing the FM 2009 gold demo and thinking they have the final game? The final game will be the patched version (either 9.0.1 or even 9.0.2). Some have found bugs that may well have been found in an earlier beta demo. Also, surely a simple 'This is only a BETA demo, not the final game! Please visit SIgames..etc' disclaimer when the game is started should solve this. I think there is alot to be said for an initial beta demo.

Having said that, where do you draw the line? You could have a second beta demo to test that bugs had been fixed, then a third, then Gold, then a patched Gold, etc. Which of course would be a nonsense.

The demo would obviously be limited in time, just like the current demo. Are you worried about the current FM09 demo being "leaked" too?

I would have thought so, but there is a difference between this demo and a "public beta".

When the demo was released, it was with lots of fanfare and publicity, specifically including a release date so people knew that the game would be released on 14th November (or whatever date depending on your territory).

A public beta would carry no such fanfare, therefore if someone new to the game were to get there hands on a leaked copy of "FM10", they might think that it was the whole game, rather than simply an unfinished beta.

However, it should be possible to write "FM10 BETA COPY" all over the opening screen of the beta surely?

Oh, and, for the person who wrote it - I don't think that the testing was under-par. Whilst I was not part of the testing team (I have a full-time job, couldn't apply), people say the same thing every year. For me, I don't think that anything really major was missed - the only major issue I have come across is the injury bug, which is probably fairly easy to tweak. The other major issue is the hardware problems that people have had, and that was bound to happen with the advent of 3d, because, as SI have said, they cannot test every possible combination of hardware.

It should be noted that I'm not downplaying peoples issues with the demo, merely stating my opinion that I think the testers have done a very good job.

But does the average fan know what a beta version is. And will they even bother to read the opening screens anyway?

What we need, is DRM authentication for Beta

But does the average fan know what a beta version is. And will they even bother to read the opening screens anyway?

I think that if, in big, big red letters "THIS IS A BETA COPY OF FOOTBALL MANAGER 10 AND IS NOT THE FULL GAME" was written on the opening screen, people could not ignore it!

What we need, is DRM authentication for Beta

Stop causing trouble This is a good thread without going down that path...

Someone from SI is free to correct me, but i don't see how this extra testing step is feasible;

- there is 12 months maximum between releases of FM versions (some features may begin development earlier, but this is the timeframe they have on average).

- that's twelve months to conceptualise, design, implement and test new features, update teams and squads and then test the entire product, all before sending it to the manufacturer and ready for distribution.

- with the closed beta (or alpha or whatever it is), the game can be tested in its fully featured form on a specific set of machines, with easily controlled parameters, far more productive and accountable bug reports/criticisms and far easier updating of the code.

-if the closed beta was replaced with an open beta, it would be replaced by poorly controllable computers setups and playing styles, far more unhelpful feedback. it would also become impossible to easily update the code and still keep everyone uptodate (in terms of bandwidth, compatibility with a wide variety of systems, keeping people informed etc.)

-if the open beta was to follow the closed testing, then it would cut a significant amount of time (maybe a full 10% or more) out of the development cycle. leading to less features being added each year and the product becoming stale.

-people playing the beta (or hearing about the results) may become disinclined to purchase the finished product given the host of "bugs" (real or otherwise) that were apparent in the beta and their perceived lack of faith in SI's ability to fix the problems come full release. Judging by a lot of the content on this forum, people having unreasonable expectations of beta's or jumping to rash conclusions is a very real concern.

Love it or hate it, i think the method of testing annual release games (like FM) makes sound business sense (even if there is some room for improvement: test the game under 95% of the possible playing permutations on 95% of the possible computer systems so that 95% of the games features work for 95% of people. The number's i've given are obviously made up, but that's the principle; test it as much as is reasonably possible while maintaining a sound business model and appeasing the vast majority of consumers.

cheers

The demo would obviously be limited in time, just like the current demo. Are you worried about the current FM09 demo being "leaked" too?

Take your point Paul, but how would this be any different to people playing the FM 2009 gold demo and thinking they have the final game? The final game will be the patched version (either 9.0.1 or even 9.0.2). Some have found bugs that may well have been found in an earlier beta demo. Also, surely a simple 'This is only a BETA demo, not the final game! Please visit SIgames..etc' disclaimer when the game is started should solve this. I think there is alot to be said for an initial beta demo.

Having said that, where do you draw the line? You could have a second beta demo to test that bugs had been fixed, then a third, then Gold, then a patched Gold, etc. Which of course would be a nonsense.

Precisely... Are they trying to imply that we demo players are so not bight till we will think it is the final version? ********

But does the average fan know what a beta version is. And will they even bother to read the opening screens anyway?

They can have a pop up box at the end of 6 months stating this is just a beta version bla bla bla..

Someone from SI is free to correct me, but i don't see how this extra testing step is feasible;

- there is 12 months maximum between releases of FM versions (some features may begin development earlier, but this is the timeframe they have on average).

- that's twelve months to conceptualise, design, implement and test new features, update teams and squads and then test the entire product, all before sending it to the manufacturer and ready for distribution.

- with the closed beta (or alpha or whatever it is), the game can be tested in its fully featured form on a specific set of machines, with easily controlled parameters, far more productive and accountable bug reports/criticisms and far easier updating of the code.

-if the closed beta was replaced with an open beta, it would be replaced by poorly controllable computers setups and playing styles, far more unhelpful feedback. it would also become impossible to easily update the code and still keep everyone uptodate (in terms of bandwidth, compatibility with a wide variety of systems, keeping people informed etc.)

-if the open beta was to follow the closed testing, then it would cut a significant amount of time (maybe a full 10% or more) out of the development cycle. leading to less features being added each year and the product becoming stale.

-people playing the beta (or hearing about the results) may become disinclined to purchase the finished product given the host of "bugs" (real or otherwise) that were apparent in the beta and their perceived lack of faith in SI's ability to fix the problems come full release. Judging by a lot of the content on this forum, people having unreasonable expectations of beta's or jumping to rash conclusions is a very real concern.

Love it or hate it, i think the method of testing annual release games (like FM) makes sound business sense (even if there is some room for improvement: test the game under 95% of the possible playing permutations on 95% of the possible computer systems so that 95% of the games features work for 95% of people. The number's i've given are obviously made up, but that's the principle; test it as much as is reasonably possible while maintaining a sound business model and appeasing the vast majority of consumers.

cheers

You don't get the point. Having more users with different system configurations, having different methods of playing and having different mindset in playing will result in more chances of people finding out more rare bugs...

Concentrate on the official game

Concentrate on the official game

That will be the best. But the need for a patch immediately after the game release sucks

Of course now there is an active way of activating a beta demo (I expect it's viable to use the same system being used for retail FM2009). Next year could be more possible to have a beta demo again. I managed to survive without the beta FM this year due to the FML Beta .

I tend to a little bit obsessive about things not working and I even enjoy (kind of) finding new bugs in the previous betas (even though I do it a lot at work as well :s).

Anyway, I'm all for a beta next year as before that damned torrent leak. But for now let's just hope for a smooth release day and no last minute commitments suddenly cropping up this weekend.

What I mean is that if you release an unfinished "demo", to a controlled amount of people, and someone leaks it, then the danger is that this demo gets around the net and the uninitiated think its the finished game.

But I am all for looking at this again, as long as we can reliably protect against leaks etc, which might entail some sort of copy protection. It also needs to be workable in terms of managing the bug reporting, coding timelines etc etc.

We will have to see. Rest assured we are fully aware of the potential benefits of doing something like this.

would'nt drm have been a good idea for that? with only one install alowed

A gold demo?

Excuse my ignorance, but there will be another demo?

A gold demo?

Excuse my ignorance, but there will be another demo?

The one you are probably playing is the gold demo as it is what you will see when you buy the full game, the OP wants a beta version so we can find the bugs and report them back to SI

Thing is, even if we did a beta demo, it wouldnt mean we could slip the release date any more easily.

So what is the reaction going to be on here if we release a beta demo, fix the major bugs in it for Gold, but leave some other bugs for future patches......would people be understanding? I am not so sure.

Arguably by releasing a beta demo you do get to focus on the most important bugs, and reduce the chances of missing them, but it can also be problematic in terms of people's expectations.......

Arguments for and against, as I said. Perhaps the best solution is a larger scale closed beta.......

But to be fair, would it be any worse than it is now? So many people complaining about having a release day patch.

I think that not doing it because people of people expectations is the wrong way to look at it. At the end of the day, if we had a public beta and the big bugs were found - you'd be releasing a much better product than without it.

The one you are probably playing is the gold demo as it is what you will see when you buy the full game, the OP wants a beta version so we can find the bugs and report them back to SI

Ahh yes, yes i support this them. Has we can see the fm 09 demo was a perfect example how could things go wrong.

Very similar to my recent idea about a "beta demo" or whatever.

Obviously I agree it's a good idea.

*snip*

*Just seen PaulC's comment there.

Good to see SI considering it.

Very similar to my recent idea about a "beta demo" or whatever.

Obviously I agree it's a good idea.

But SI won't be interested.

i don't think they will either because if they really trusted drm they could have realesed a beta demo without haveing to worry about it being leaked, which is sad coz it means we're stuck with drm And without a beta demo to iron out the bugs:(

So what is the reaction going to be on here if we release a beta demo, fix the major bugs in it for Gold, but leave some other bugs for future patches......would people be understanding? I am not so sure.

Arguably by releasing a beta demo you do get to focus on the most important bugs, and reduce the chances of missing them, but it can also be problematic in terms of people's expectations.......

Arguments for and against, as I said. Perhaps the best solution is a larger scale closed beta.......

The majority of people who play FM don't come on this forum. The majority wouldn't download a beta demo (or any demo). The majority probably don't even use patches. Therefore I would say getting the boxed game to as high a standard as possible is the most important concern. I, like many others, stumbled across several bugs within a few minutes casual play of the FM09 demo, which leaves a really bad impression of the game. There are more 'uninitiated' who are going to buy the game and not know about the patches than there are n00bs who can't understand what a beta demo is, or who will ever even hear about a beta demo.

So what is the reaction going to be on here if we release a beta demo, fix the major bugs in it for Gold, but leave some other bugs for future patches......would people be understanding? I am not so sure

It's all about managing expectations.

If you make it clear that you will make it a priority to fix any game-breaking bugs, and any quick fixes, but you aren't promising every bug to be fixed by release date then people in general will understand.

Whilst open beta is rare for a primarily single-player game, it's not unheard off.

I would support a wider scale closed beta but it would need to have far more pervasive DRM than the retail version to avoid leaking. I personally wouldn't mind this, but I suspect others might.

I would support a wider scale closed beta but it would need to have far more pervasive DRM than the retail version to avoid leaking. I personally wouldn't mind this, but I suspect others might.

Nah, I believed that wouldn't work. Because if that happens, some people may come to this forum and complain that they are not invited. May stir up more troubles in my opinion.

No offense, but an arguement of "someone might mistake the demo for the full game" is a load of bull.

I think the main issue should revolve around what SI deems a better solution for indentifying & correcting bugs.

I personally believe that a beta will allow for more comprehensive testing, but I can see how it can produce "noise" from user that incounter problems that are a result of their own systems rather then actual bugs.

If producing only one Demo allows programers to focus more on the final game (or first patch) then we should accept this (one demo) as the better solution since it is always better to get the finished product on release (or close to it).

Nah, I believed that wouldn't work. Because if that happens, some people may come to this forum and complain that they are not invited. May stir up more troubles in my opinion.

Hopefully getting people to sign non-disclosure agreements under their real and verified (as far as possible) identities would lower the possibility of this. I presume this is what happens in the closed beta at the moment, and I haven't seen too many people complaining about this.

The one you are probably playing is the gold demo as it is what you will see when you buy the full game, the OP wants a beta version so we can find the bugs and report them back to SI

What's OP?

The majority of people who play FM don't come on this forum. The majority wouldn't download a beta demo (or any demo). The majority probably don't even use patches. Therefore I would say getting the boxed game to as high a standard as possible is the most important concern. I, like many others, stumbled across several bugs within a few minutes casual play of the FM09 demo, which leaves a really bad impression of the game. There are more 'uninitiated' who are going to buy the game and not know about the patches than there are n00bs who can't understand what a beta demo is, or who will ever even hear about a beta demo.

Yes I share the same sentiments...

No offense, but an arguement of "someone might mistake the demo for the full game" is a load of bull.

I think the main issue should revolve around what SI deems a better solution for indentifying & correcting bugs.

I personally believe that a beta will allow for more comprehensive testing, but I can see how it can produce "noise" from user that incounter problems that are a result of their own systems rather then actual bugs.

If producing only one Demo allows programers to focus more on the final game (or first patch) then we should accept this (one demo) as the better solution since it is always better to get the finished product on release (or close to it).

I totally agree with the first part.. Indirectly insulting the intelligence of players....

yes up.................