Should Public Beta Branch make a comeback?

[greenz81]

I don’t want to clog up the feedback thread so I thought I start a fresh post here.

What are your opinions of a public beta branch making a comeback? As we can see over the last few years, bugs have snuck through QA or even returned from previous editions.
The game is getting more and more complex and needs as many eyes as possible. The reasoning why SI stopped the public beta was due to lack of feedback. 
Do you think times have changed and the public are more engaged with developers more than ever?
Do you think it will improve the engagement between SI and the public, without the frustrations from the consumer spilling over?

I would like to hear the positives and the negatives. I don’t want the ‘SI tried it before, didn’t work’ answers.

[andu1]

I remember the FM19 public betas, i think that was the one when strikers 1v1 were completely broken. There was a lot of testing done and lots of feedback provided.

Don't know why they stopped doing for the next games, they must have a reason.

[themadsheep2001]

No. For the same reason they took it away  - was massively underutilised by users for the amount of resources going into it. We have this discussion every year. And there's no evidence thats going to change. People still dont get that testers track and spot the bugs, but its not on them to lead fixes. Its not si. ply about best eyes but dedicated ones. Most of the closed testers not only come from the community, they come from this forum,

[greenz81]

8 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

No. For the same reason they took it away  - was massively underutilised by users. We have this discussion every year. And there's no evidence thats going to change. People still dont get that testers track and spot the bugs, but its not on them to lead fixes. Its not simply about best eyes but dedicated ones. 

No evidence based on what? Something SI tried over 5 years ago?
So it’s better to release a game with the same bugs being reported every year, features not working correctly and small fixes being delayed until the major patch drops? Then you wait for feedback from the public after a full release? I haven’t played the game since full release. I’ve had the game since early access. I’ve reported bugs during early access!
it’s obvious the hardcore users will report feedback. I’ve seen quite a few users dedicate their time into giving feedback and evidence on a game released with a string of issues the alpha testers missed. 
The game has been in this sort of state for the last few releases, now I think that’s evidence it’s needs  beta branch!

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by greenz81

[themadsheep2001]

5 minutes ago, greenz81 said:

No evidence based on what? Something SI tried over 5 years ago?
So it’s better to release a game with the same bugs being reported every year, features not working correctly and small fixes being delayed until the major patch drops? Then you wait for feedback from the public after a full release? I haven’t played the game since full release. I’ve had the game since early release. I’ve reported bugs during early release!
it’s obvious the hardcore users will report feedback. I’ve seen quite a few users dedicate their time into giving feedback and evidence on a game released with a string of issues the alpha testers missed. 

 

Testers dont fix bugs, they report them. Doesnt mean they get fixed before release, thats not their job. Where do you think alpha testers come from? The community of course. You keep talking about hardcore users, but have you thought about the fact that alpha testers would fall into that.

Think about that before you post about alpha testers, because they've probably already spotted them before you've even got hands on the game. 

[TheHuss]

The worrying thing to take away from this is that it's not about identifying bugs, it's that SI know about them before release and still knowingly release products in the state that they do. 

If this is the case, which the mod has all but explicitly stated, then surely it would be fair for SI to announce the known bugs at release in the same way that SI loudly touts each version's "new features"...

[greenz81]

Just now, themadsheep2001 said:

Testers dont fix bugs, they report them. Doesnt mean they get fixed before release, thats not their job. Where do you think alpha testers come from? The community of course. Think about that before you post about alpha testers, because they've probably already spotted them before you've even got hands on the game. 

So are you suggesting SI have a game they cannot bug fix before release date? That the set target is unrealistic? That the features promised were known to not working correctly, but instead of informing the community, they just let the community find it for themselves? SI have admitted communication on their part isn’t that great, but why? It’s not hard to inform your dedicated user base who buy the game every year, that there will be issues on release. To call it a love letter to the FM series shows there must be some disconnect between what is being advertised to what is actually being released. 
 

[themadsheep2001]

16 minutes ago, greenz81 said:

So are you suggesting SI have a game they cannot bug fix before release date? That the set target is unrealistic? That the features promised were known to not working correctly, but instead of informing the community, they just let the community find it for themselves? SI have admitted communication on their part isn’t that great, but why? It’s not hard to inform your dedicated user base who buy the game every year, that there will be issues on release. To call it a love letter to the FM series shows there must be some disconnect between what is being advertised to what is actually being released. 
 

I think you're being argumentative for argumentative's sake since i didnt say the above and you're putting words in my mouth, so im going leave it

[greenz81]

1 minute ago, themadsheep2001 said:

I think you're being argumentative for argumentative's sake since i didnt say the above and you're putting words in my mouth, so im going leave it

I’m not the only who thought the same. And please, do not try and suggest I’m arguing for the sake of arguing. I’m am only trying to understand some of the decisions that make no logical sense to me in regards to how the game gets released in such a state that long term saves cannot be played! 

[Zapoleon]

Not sure. I think something needs to change. Because I can see the next games just being more of the same unless something is changed, which is just going to frustrate more and more people.

[greenz81]

1 hour ago, Zapoleon said:

Not sure. I think something needs to change. Because I can see the next games just being more of the same unless something is changed, which is just going to frustrate more and more people.

I think for me last year was the first time people felt something didn’t feel right, in regards to how things were being communicated. But promises from SI said there would be more transparency. Then the licensing issue, 150 missing players and it’s current state with the AI in this years edition has made me question… why not just do what you said you was going to do! Someone had to have made that decision to not make it public. 
I don’t even know why they just don’t give us the target date for the patch. If it gets delayed, communicate as promised!

I know there are passionate people at SI, who are also part of the community who interact with us. I doubt they would’ve wanted to hold back information as well. So yes, something or someone(s) have got to change. Whoever makes the decisions to not inform us because they are doing the opposite of what Si are promising in regards to transparency 

Edited November 18, 2023 by greenz81

[Brentford Alan]

9 hours ago, TheHuss said:

The worrying thing to take away from this is that it's not about identifying bugs, it's that SI know about them before release and still knowingly release products in the state that they do. 

If this is the case, which the mod has all but explicitly stated, then surely it would be fair for SI to announce the known bugs at release in the same way that SI loudly touts each version's "new features"...

Game release is scheduled for 6th Nov, how does the 'community' react to SI announcing they are pushing the release date back indefinitely to give them time to fix the bug found on 5th Nov?

 

[greenz81]

46 minutes ago, Brentford Alan said:

Game release is scheduled for 6th Nov, how does the 'community' react to SI announcing they are pushing the release date back indefinitely to give them time to fix the bug found on 5th Nov?

 

I think it's more of SI releasing a game with known issues, especially with regards to features, and not being open about it on release day. This is after the promise of more communication pre-release

[DarJ]

I asked a few years ago and the reason I was given is that the game is available on multiple platforms now and not all of them support the the public beta branch like steam.

[greenz81]

6 minutes ago, DarJ said:

I asked a few years ago and the reason I was given is that the game is available on multiple platforms now and not all of them support the the public beta branch like steam.

Alot of games offer beta for PC branch but not for consoles, which is understandable. Considering majority of the userbase who play FM are actually on PC, you'd think it wouldn't be an issue.

It would be like companies banning game mods on PC for the reason the console owners cannot use them.

 

[DarJ]

5 minutes ago, greenz81 said:

Considering majority of the userbase who play FM are actually on PC

this is not the case anymore since last year I think

[wazza]

I'm sure I re-call editions ago on the fm series that the beta would be released and there was a fix during the beta stage on occasions, then again another update at final release day followed by 2 or 3 more. 

Maybe I'm wrong and my ageing memory is playing tricks on me lol but if not why has this changed to only seem to get a bigger patch around December. It's like someones made a management decision  for whatever reason. What I do know is I've bought the game each year and been able to enjoy playing it from early access with the updates  coming when they do, except this year. The high scoring games, late subs are really annoying and I like to play the gane as most realistic as possible.  If the alpha testers picked all this up, why havnt si fixed them if they have known about it. 

The game is marketed as the most polished version which  to me  means that the majority of bugs are fixed when in reality imo it's in its worst state ever on release In its history. 

It's also making me consider not buying early access again as there doesnt seem a point to it if bugs are not fixed. May as well play the previous years version for longer and then decide if its good enough quality in Jan once all bugs are fixed.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by wazza

[greenz81]

13 minutes ago, wazza said:

I'm sure I re-call editions ago on the fm series that the beta would be released and there was a fix during the beta stage on occasions, then again another update at final release day followed by 2 or 3 more. 

Maybe I'm wrong and my ageing memory is playing tricks on me lol but if not why has this changed to only seem to get a bigger patch around December. It's like someones made a management decision  for whatever reason. What I do know is I've bought the game each year and been able to enjoy playing it from early access with the updates  coming when they do, except this year. The high scoring games, late subs are really annoying and I like to play the gane as most realistic as possible.  If the alpha testers picked all this up, why havnt si fixed them if they have known about it. 

The game is marketed as the most polished version which  to me  means that the majority of bugs are fixed when in reality imo it's in its worst state ever on release In its history. 

It's also making me consider not buying early access again as there doesnt seem a point to it if bugs are not fixed. May as well play the previous years version for longer and then decide if its good enough quality in Jan once all bugs are fixed.

 

 

For me personally, I will only buy next years edition once I see where they go from here. A beta branch is a logical solution to an ongoing problem. To have to wait for the major patches to play the game is not the way forward. Having that beta branch would alleviate the pressure from the HARDCORE users from these forums and would create more constructive feedback. Everyone at present is guessing. If beta branch was available now for example, the players not on it would ask, “has it resolved this particular problem”. If so, they probably would jump on it as well. 
What is game breaking for one person isn’t for another and having that option of a beta branch would probably resolve quite a few users issues, instead of again waiting weeks after release for the major patch

[greenz81]

Noticing threads being locked also because of ‘bickering’, couldn’t SI just release a ‘Known Bug List’ so all this bickering stops. Doesn’t seem fair that there’s information within these threads that get lost and then new users post asking the same questions.

[craiigman]

From what I remember from back then it was a bit of a s**t show. I initially thought it was going to be something similar to Battlefield 4's "Community Test Environment", but it ended up not fixing the main concerns with the game at the time. So yes it was a complete waste of resources and time. I honestly don't think it works for a yearly release game of this scale. That doesn't mean I'm happy with how things are, I've never come across a game this big not have roadmaps for stuff that's not working as intended or simply push something not working correctly into a fix for the next game, or one after, or one after that.

Maybe things will change with Unity, but I can only see that if it's completely new code. If there is any shared coding, I imagine there will be a lot technical debt that will never be resolved.

[Johnny Ace]

56 minutes ago, greenz81 said:

Noticing threads being locked also because of ‘bickering’, couldn’t SI just release a ‘Known Bug List’ so all this bickering stops. Doesn’t seem fair that there’s information within these threads that get lost and then new users post asking the same questions.

I locked one because it went off topic with two posters going back and forth

The more it continues, the more threads get locked and content mods getting handed out because genuine posters are being lost amongst a sea of nonsense and arguing  

[greenz81]

12 minutes ago, Johnny Ace said:

I locked one because it went off topic with two posters going back and forth

The more it continues, the more threads get locked and content mods getting handed out because genuine posters are being lost amongst a sea of nonsense and arguing  

But the debates are about issues with the game. If a mod was to reach out and basically say “this is a known issue being looked into, so there is no reason to debate anymore” these wouldn’t be occurring as much. 

[Johnny Ace]

1 minute ago, greenz81 said:

But the debates are about issues with the game. If a mod was to reach out and basically say “this is a known issue being looked into, so there is no reason to debate anymore” these wouldn’t be occurring as much. 

It's not for us mods to publicly announce known issues

All I can say is get reporting any issues you find rather than discussing them  

[imbackagain]

I thought they do a beta before the game? Am i missing something?

[whatsupdoc]

If this is the outcome of not having a public beta, then... there's a strong argument for a public beta right there. 

If alpha testers did indeed report back that player interaction, ai squad and match decisions were as catastrophically bugged as they are now... and it still got released like this... then that's on the developers for not prioritising changes in these areas given the urgency / severity of the issues. 

[bobbyb12345]

23 hours ago, Brentford Alan said:

Game release is scheduled for 6th Nov, how does the 'community' react to SI announcing they are pushing the release date back indefinitely to give them time to fix the bug found on 5th Nov?

 

Would depend on the significance of the bug but is there any recent history to suggest bugs aren’t found with a lot more notice than this? There’s stuff that’s been issues for years that haven’t been fixed…