By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Should more multiplayer centric games have a beta/alpha?

 

So?

Hell ya! 2 40.00%
 
Wooo Destiny! 1 20.00%
 
Can't wait for Destiny! 1 20.00%
 
Maybe! 0 0%
 
Seem's a bit risky mate... 0 0%
 
Destiny, Destiny, Destiny! 1 20.00%
 
No, they should not... 0 0%
 
hmmm 0 0%
 
Not sure 0 0%
 
What!? 0 0%
 
Total:5

So, I recently played the destiny alpha and bfh beta which were pretty good. It let me get an idea of what to expect from the games since they are both online centric. It also gave me something new to play for a bit too. I thought that it helped my decision to get the games or not quite a bit. I really liked destiny so I have it paid off and bfh was good, but felt too much like bf4. So I prob won't get it. It def does seem like a double edged sword though. So, do you think mp games going forward should have it? Games like The Division, the crew(which I think does have it.), and cod.



Around the Network

I'm gonna assume you mean public alphas/beta, since all games have alphas and betas.

It's probably not a good idea to do too many public alphas, as they usually are nowhere near the level of polish that the Destiny alpha apparently was, and a lot of people who aren't properly informed (that's most of the general public) would probably be put off by playing an alpha.

There should definitely be more public betas, but what's most important is that these betas are done at an appropriate point in development where the devs actually have enough time to take all the feedback into account and make changes accordingly. What we don't need are these demos pretending to be betas like what EA has been doing with Battlefield the last couple years, releasing the "beta" 2 weeks before the game ships