"Looking at the open beta, for us at DICE it's truly been a huge success," said Gustavsson. "We could have been better in how we messaged this to the community, what we were doing and why it's not as polished as a final demo but there is a reason we called it a beta and not a demo."
"This test was done so we would get as many eyes as possible on the game code to ensure a good release, and that means hammering the back end, seeing that the servers hold up, making sure we get all the telemetry we need, that all the hooks are working and also getting a good first take on the balancing of the game. What is the score progression? How are people doing?
"But of course also Origin and Battlelog, all of these things that we need to get ready for the final ship. So for us it's been really useful and I would really say mission accomplished. Once again, yes, there is a vocal community out there but I wouldn't like to have it any other way. It's dedication and passion when people speak up and there's nothing wrong with passion."
Verno wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 12:59:/me gives Verno a cookie for typing my reply for me.
To me that’s absurd logic. Your choice on buying it or not, but basing a decision on what you think you saw does not make any sense at all.
"What you think you saw" is probably the most hilarious thing I've seen posted in awhile. Yes how dare people make decisions based on actual play experience, they should observe the version number at all times and instead imagine what retail will be like. They treated it like a demo, not a beta. Second, most people don't give a shit about the SP game so obviously they would base their decision on how the multiplayer plays. EA isn't doing a "demo" at release so this is what people have to go on, if it confusing why people are deciding whether or not to buy the game then you aren't thinking hard enough.
Bhruic wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 13:14:
My only beef is with the people who are concluding the final version is going to "suck" based on the beta. And in that area, Darks is right - none of us have seen the final. Taking a wait-and-see attitude is fine, but it'd be nice if people would lay off the pre-judging. Judge the final product by the actual final product, not conjecture about what it'll be like.
Bhruic wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 13:14:
I have no problem with people who have decided to cancel pre-orders based on the beta, so this isn't really aimed at you, just using your quote. There's nothing wrong with deciding to wait to see what the final version is like, and whether they've cleared up a lot of issues with the beta. My only beef is with the people who are concluding the final version is going to "suck" based on the beta. And in that area, Darks is right - none of us have seen the final. Taking a wait-and-see attitude is fine, but it'd be nice if people would lay off the pre-judging. Judge the final product by the actual final product, not conjecture about what it'll be like.
Yes how dare people make decisions based on actual play experience, they should observe the version number at all times and instead imagine what retail will be like.
First off, you played the MP beta, not the SP portion of the game. You haven’t even seen the game or what it’s really like. The MP beta has nothing to do with the final code in the SP game. So your logic is seriously flawed.
To me that’s absurd logic. Your choice on buying it or not, but basing a decision on what you think you saw does not make any sense at all.
necrosis wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 12:30:qsto wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 12:16:If that is true why did Dice leave the testers with a hideously old code base causing people to think the game is a unpolished turd? It just defies logic to me.Verno wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 10:59:I'll just leave this here...
It was definitely useful to me, I decided to skip the game based on the beta
elefunk wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 12:23:Creston wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 11:17:For me personally, I liked it far better than any server browser that DICE has ever produced. The length of time between clicking a server and getting in game wasn't longer, and before looking at servers, I didn't need to sit through an array of splash screens either. Nor did I need to go through some weird hack or tweak of deleting splash screen videos or modifying my launch script to circumvent splash screens.Bucky wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 11:15:
but I do think the web-based browsing/launching system is a good idea, and could really be good if they tighten it up a bit more.
Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's a good idea? It seems needlessly cumbersome to me.
Creston
It was even faster for me than getting into a game of Team Fortress 2. I saved a favorite place on my browser to Battlelog, so whenever I wanted to play BF3, I'd click that favorite place, and seconds later be joining a server. Without needing to load the game first, the entire process was much faster.
And finally, the simple fact that they can update Battlelog without releasing a full Client patch means that whatever issues that do exist will be fixed much quicker. Throughout the first few days of the beta, they released 5-6 updates that fixed most of the issues people were encountering.
qsto wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 12:16:If that is true why did Dice leave the testers with a hideously old code base causing people to think the game is a unpolished turd? It just defies logic to me.Verno wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 10:59:I'll just leave this here...
It was definitely useful to me, I decided to skip the game based on the beta
Creston wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 11:17:For me personally, I liked it far better than any server browser that DICE has ever produced. The length of time between clicking a server and getting in game wasn't longer, and before looking at servers, I didn't need to sit through an array of splash screens either. Nor did I need to go through some weird hack or tweak of deleting splash screen videos or modifying my launch script to circumvent splash screens.Bucky wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 11:15:
but I do think the web-based browsing/launching system is a good idea, and could really be good if they tighten it up a bit more.
Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's a good idea? It seems needlessly cumbersome to me.
Creston
Verno wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 10:59:I'll just leave this here...
It was definitely useful to me, I decided to skip the game based on the beta