Community: Message List

Re: The Problem With Closed BETA Testing

donotreply@activision.com — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 01:16:12 GMT

kastro187420 wrote:

Everything you list in the opening paragraph of the second quote is community feedback that can be obtained post-production via the forums, twitter, YouTube, Twitch and any other various forms of media. Most of those points are also entirely subjective if we're operating within the context of this thread.

Yes, a lot of this can be obtained post-production, but a lot of it can't be adjusted post-production, especially map design/flow, objective placements, and spawn points. Unless they've changed how they've done things for example, in Black Ops they had to outright remove some maps from game modes because the spawning was so broken. Additionally, it requires extra work on their behalf because all the patches have to be pre-approved by the 1st party.

It's much easier and quicker, and better for the game in the long run, to have a smooth launch rather than have to spend time post-launch trying to defend why the game was launched in the state it was.

The above quote (#3) if generated from this thread is why I hated it to begin with. Inaccurate information begets inaccurate information as people now assume that a select group of YouTubers possibly replace the audience of the internal beta.
Replace? No, they likely don't replace. But I don't think it would be any stretch of the imagination to assume that select group of Youtubers get the game early to help hype it up and get people buying. In the mean time, their feedback to the devs would help shape the game, and so they do in a way act as a "tester".

The fact of the matter is that games will require patches.

I feel like this is just a cheap cop-out and an excuse that can be trotted out these days by developers to justify releasing a broken game. There's this mindset that because we have the ability to patch games post-launch that it's ok to release it without as much due-diligence in the development and testing. This mindset is not only limited to developers and publishers, but also gamers these days.

Games don't have to require patches. A lot of them do, but the amount of patching can be drastically reduced through proper development time and testing.

Paragraph 1 + 2: So we've shifted to map design/flow from head glitching. That makes more sense and would have presented a better argument had you stated it initially. The latter two however don't fit the bill. Those can be moved. Black Ops II has made this evident. Spawns were also adjusted in MW3.

The bit about BO spawns and removal of maps I'll not comment on. It simply sounds like conjecture and it's an argument that will lead us nowhere. You're right that such items could bring a smoother launch, but only if you find fault with the items entirely. It is, again, subjective.

Paragraph 3: Right, that's definitely plausible. I don't think any of us could argue that it isn't. -- The problem is that this thread is operating entirely on rumor and unvalidated information. Your quote stated youtubers OR internal testers. There was no middle ground for both. The thread operates under the assumption that it is very limited when there is nothing to show that it is true. Circle back to my core issue with this thread and you see why I'm arguing these points. I'll post it below.

My point is that your post is so uninformed that it's not going to influence any developer to open dialogue with you on this front. You need to be curious and seek information to engage discussion instead of creating a situation in which a developer immediately has to be on the defensive and backtrack your points.

This is one of the core problems with the Call of Duty community. People polarize on a subject, consume themselves with being correct and then when the discussion hits it's not a process of gathering information, but wading through the inaccuracies held by the community.

Paragraph 4: You can feel about it however you want, but it's hardly an excuse. "Broken" is also entirely subjective and is a term thrown around by gamers so much that it's usage is laughable at best. Seldom are games inherently broken. In the vast sea of grey that is the userbase of all games everywhere, so much happens in isolated events that are blown out of proportion to create the idea that the game is broken. It's also the quick ticket label to express one's rage for not having the game built to one's exact preferences or the user holding unrealistic expectations. -- That said, I see the point that you're trying to make. However, with games being as large as they are and as on demand as they are, there's no way that a game could be released on a time table to where it did not need patches. Especially when core grievances that are listed are the definition of subjective.

End of Day: My point in this post is not to tell people that they're wrong for wanting these things, but to have people realize that the approach to discussion is, for what it's worth, somewhat caustic and unconstructive. There are elements that have to be removed to better induce communication.

Re: The Problem With Closed BETA Testing

donotreply@activision.com — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:26:50 GMT

@kastro187420

Every year we get fed the same line of "We're confident in our testers." and every year the game releases with ton of problems that require patches within the same month the game was released. At some point, Activision or the devs, whoever makes the call, need to just concede the fact that their decision to do "internal testing" has less to do with quality assurance, and more to do with keeping the Hype up.

This is a moot point. You then go on to invalidate this as an issue below.

Let the community get out there and start actually testing the game. Let us play the game modes and make sure objectives are properly placed, that Head Glitching isn't rampant, that weapons work as intended, that Kill Streaks aren't broken, that the spawn system won't fail. All of these things that constantly come up in the first month of the game. The Devs always act shocked that this is the case and it just boggles my mind as to how people haven't caught onto the fact yet that these issues can be averted with some simple public testing.

Worried about people not providing feedback? Team up with Combat Testing. They have a proven Track Record of handling issues and getting them back to the developers in a concise and professional method. I went through them once during the Beta for Medal of Honor a while ago and it did wonders for the game. Seeing how they organized bug reports, confirmed them, and reported them, it would do wonders for this game.

Combat Testing has a proven track record of some good, I've done/seen it, but it doesn't eliminate your opening statement in the first quote from happening. The fact of the matter is that games will require patches.

Everything you list in the opening paragraph of the second quote is community feedback that can be obtained post-production via the forums, twitter, YouTube, Twitch and any other various forms of media. Most of those points are also entirely subjective if we're operating within the context of this thread.

There are so many better viable alternatives than relying on some select youtubers or internal testers.

End of Day: Yes open beta testing can help in some way. I think we all agree with that. This thread however has spawned exactly what I was touching on before. The above quote (#3) if generated from this thread is why I hated it to begin with. Inaccurate information begets inaccurate information as people now assume that a select group of YouTubers possibly replace the audience of the internal beta.

Re: The Problem With Closed BETA Testing

donotreply@activision.com — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:29:47 GMT

ghamorra wrote:

Foxhound-Pro wrote:

An hour after midnight, depending on where you are, could be a sale that happened legitimately six hours before you even queued up in line. It could also be an illegal sale.

I shoud have clarified this earlier though, when I say illegal, I mean they broke a street date. There are illegal acquisitions that happen for sure, but those are few and far inbetween. Every mom-and-pop that sells it early or back door deal at a Gamestop doesn't negatively impact Activision as they, the publisher, have already earned revenue for that game. -- You do realize that's how it works, right? Activision has the games, Gamestop/Stores purchase them, then they are sold to the population. This drives up costs btw and is why an all digital future is better. Remove the middle man and you can lower costs. You also create a saftey net of sorts.
I was thinking more along the lines of cracking discs and making copies.

You would need a "cracked" console most if not all of the time. Let's face it, PS3/Sony is the worst regarding this. MSFT at least bans people and openly. Still though, the amount of illegal purchases outweighs the piracy. Again, more reason for an all digital future.

Re: The Problem With Closed BETA Testing

donotreply@activision.com — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:10:48 GMT

ghamorra wrote:

I understood what you were saying. I just wasn't aware that THAT many games were being illegally circulated. For Black Ops II I had the game in my console almost and hour after midnight. There were some serious issues at launch with the PS3 game and it caused nearly everyone to wait for a fix. However there were still tens of thousands of people who were way ahead of everyone in prestige. That's a lot of money Activision lost out on. My thought process is this: If that many people had the game early Activision would have done something about it. From what I'm aware of there was nothing done, therefore the games were distributed legally. The most logical reason for Activision to distribute the game legally is for BETA testing.

I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying that's what I'm concluding.

An hour after midnight, depending on where you are, could be a sale that happened legitimately six hours before you even queued up in line. It could also be an illegal sale.

I shoud have clarified this earlier though, when I say illegal, I mean they broke a street date. There are illegal acquisitions that happen for sure, but those are few and far inbetween. Every mom-and-pop that sells it early or back door deal at a Gamestop doesn't negatively impact Activision as they, the publisher, have already earned revenue for that game. -- You do realize that's how it works, right? Activision has the games, Gamestop/Stores purchase them, then they are sold to the population. This drives up costs btw and is why an all digital future is better. Remove the middle man and you can lower costs. You also create a saftey net of sorts.

Re: The Problem With Closed BETA Testing

donotreply@activision.com — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:22:52 GMT

ghamorra wrote:

I'm aware of illegal selling of video games, but if there's this many people who are getting the game early I would think that this would be a problem that Activision would be very interested in taking care of.

Foxhound-Pro wrote:

How many closed BETA tests that you know of have allowed stats and leaderboard placements to carry over into the retail game? In my experience, and there's quite a good bit there spanning multiple consoles, the response is slim next to none.
Fox, we both know that Activision doesn't care about the leaderboards, if so there would be an attempt to purge the unrealistic stats from them. I will admit that Trey, or whoever is in charge or handling them, did a decent job in taking care of glitchers and hackers. MW3 is still a complete distaster.

You're right. I think ATVI should do a "Day One" purge. Regardless, someone somewhere will have an advantage of time due to timezones. So it's a moot point.

The latter of my post was in relation to you stating that a closed beta was happening because stats and levels were skewed from release.

I followed your logic as.

Rockstars have stats already and near prestige. + Thousands of players have stats already. = BETA Testing is happening.

So I challenged that logic by brining up illegal/early sales and asking how many BETAs actually carried stats over.

Re: The Problem With Closed BETA Testing

donotreply@activision.com — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:15:46 GMT

ghamorra wrote:

kkiller14 wrote:

All BETA tests for Call of Duty games since MW2, have been internel tests. No YouTubers or MLG players have gotten access to any Call of Duty betas. The only CoD game that had an open beta was CoD 4. That's it.
Then why are there videos surfacing of gameplay before the game comes out? Why are there thousands for players who are well on their way to a hitting top prestige before the the game comes out? I'm sure there is a great deal of internal testing but if there isn't a closed BETA testing then why do so many of these "professional players" getting early access to the game?

Because they've acquired the game early? A lot of YouTubers have people that they can purchase the game early from in not so legal/honest ways and there are a lot of mom-and-pop shops that break street dates regularly. Move to a digital download format only and this will no longer be a problem.

How many closed BETA tests that you know of have allowed stats and leaderboard placements to carry over into the retail game? In my experience, and there's quite a good bit there spanning multiple consoles, the response is slim next to none.

Re: The Problem With Closed BETA Testing

donotreply@activision.com — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:17:29 GMT

rankismet wrote:

Agreed they would still have to overcome the mentality of "I know more than the people who do this for a living" crowd. However, there is still a large enough population that gets it.... and would be a benefit.

My concern comes from the types of test cases/stories (I don't know what discipline they are using) which seem to be missing or inadequately executed. They seem to be driven by IT versus consumer perspective. Both are needed, to be sure. Yet a technical fix that works but no one likes isn't viable. UAT appears minimal about key portions of the game. I see this at work where something gets designed and tested but then the business will say isn't what they wanted. The IT team's will respond that it's working as designed. In essence, it's correctly working incorrectly.

There are a lot of the community which have the common sense of a housefly... there are just as many who would be a useful asset at an affordable price... free.

I hope they leverage the later more going forward.

You make great points.

Re: The Problem With Closed BETA Testing

donotreply@activision.com — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 06:31:55 GMT

ghamorra wrote:

Foxhound-Pro wrote:

I completely disagree with the presentation of this thread.

Let's blame an entire group of people for a rumor you've heard about, even though you don't know the true purpose of the BETA test or the audience that it includes, by using tactics you disagree with, but aren't game breaking, as evidence of the developer's and supposed "rock star" tester's failure to properly BETA test.

I hope you can see the problem there. -- It's a huge generalization on your part. I could see the argument of opening up the BETA test to "accelerate" testing as a standalone point, but you didn't deliver that. You instead bashed some people.

Unfortunately, most gamers play BETAs to simply play the game early and cast judgement on their purchase. Most will not fulfill the role that they should and most think that the BETA is their soapbox to dictate how the game should play or what weapons are OP/UP. Even though the game is not near completion and most BETAs exist for technical stress testing, not feedback or focus group testing.

Way to over generalize yourself. Did I say it was their fault? No, I said they are a select few who play a specific way. The group that BETA tests the game is so small and one deminsional in their style of play that there would be no way to fully test the game.

Right, so I see the error of my statement. -- Let's change it to this: It's a huge generalization and assumption on your part.

Your edit to the OP only embraces my point. You're making huge assumptions and generalizations on what the beta testing is, it's goals and the audience that participates in it when you know none of that information.

Edit: My point is that your post is so uninformed that it's not going to influence any developer to open dialogue with you on this front. You need to be curious and seek information to engage discussion instead of creating a situation in which a developer immediately has to be on the defensive and backtrack your points.

This is one of the core problems with the Call of Duty community. People polarize on a subject, consume themselves with being correct and then when the discussion hits it's not a process of gathering information, but wading through the inaccuracies held by the community.

Re: The Problem With Closed BETA Testing

donotreply@activision.com — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 05:55:44 GMT

rankismet wrote:

I pretty much agree with Fox's POV. Too many would not treat the beta as intended but would form an opinion about the final product.

That said...

It is worthwhile to question the QA strategy and methods... particularly around host selection and matchmaking in Ghosts. It has been lacking in MW3 and BO2.

It's definitely a point of contention, but I don't consider it to be an issue. Regardless, a technical stress test like this would simply turn into a soapbox of people talking about things they think they understand.

Re: The Problem With Closed BETA Testing

donotreply@activision.com — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 04:34:14 GMT

ghamorra wrote:

Some of you might not know this but every Call of Duty is BETA tested, however it's a closed BETA test which means only a select group has the priviledge of playing the game and reporting problems. The problem with this is that the select group of players who do this are (from what I've heard) MLG and Youtube "Stars" who are big names in the community.

The problem with this is that this select group does represent the style of play or the cognitive thinking that the vast majority of the community possesses. By this I mean MLG and YTubers think with an overly competitive mindset. What I find with the community is that the top priority when playing Call of Duty is to have fun, winning ranks below.

Because of this you find that some "broken" or "errorness" elements of the game go far unnoticed because these BETA testers would never think to sit in the back of a map with a Target Finder LMG. They would however QS that was damn strong. The point is when you only have select group BETA testing you're only going to know of the issues that best interest those players.

Make BETA testing open or widen the breadth of players who are testing it

I completely disagree with the presentation of this thread.

Let's blame an entire group of people for a rumor you've heard about, even though you don't know the true purpose of the BETA test or the audience that it includes, by using tactics you disagree with, but aren't game breaking, as evidence of the developer's and supposed "rock star" tester's failure to properly BETA test.

I hope you can see the problem there. -- It's a huge generalization on your part. I could see the argument of opening up the BETA test to "accelerate" testing as a standalone point, but you didn't deliver that. You instead bashed some people.

Unfortunately, most gamers play BETAs to simply play the game early and cast judgement on their purchase. Most will not fulfill the role that they should and most think that the BETA is their soapbox to dictate how the game should play or what weapons are OP/UP. Even though the game is not near completion and most BETAs exist for technical stress testing, not feedback or focus group testing.

Re: WeAreDiverseHQ

donotreply@activision.com — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 05:27:13 GMT

DiverseSonar wrote:

am i not allowed to? ive never used this website and im pretty sure i dont need you telling me what i can and cannot do

Your first few posts and you decide not to read our rules or listen to our community that is warning you what you can and can not do within reasonable circumstances? Goodbye. We don't need you.

Re: Two Boosting on Black Ops 2 -Xbox Live- (Video and Speech proof)

donotreply@activision.com — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 05:26:12 GMT

Report in-game and through the 1st party tools. That is the proper way to report.

Chief Forum Moderator

Modern Warfare, Black Ops, Ghosts

Re: found a couple of boosters someone helpout to bann these guys

donotreply@activision.com — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:54:35 GMT

Report in-game please. That is the proper way to report those who cheat.

Chief Forum Moderator

Modern Warfare, Black Ops, Ghosts

Re: If this doesn't prove host disadvantage (at least for some), I don't know what does

donotreply@activision.com — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:40:28 GMT

BAREWarrior wrote:

Why r so many people saying "Ping means everything" are you pinging EVERY Single host EVERY game? NOOO. Your not! Because you dont have THEIR IP address. Jeeze people. Educate yourself.

Posts like these are a pain to read. Ping is King. No joke.

@KirikaRyoko gave a really good statement regarding how and when bandwidth comes in to play, but for the most part ping is what matters.

Sending information to the host constantly to update the gamestate is where ping comes in. Ping is how fast that data travels from you to them. It's a composite of sending and receiving. The easiest way to look at it is that a ping of ten (10) milliseconds means that it takes five (5) milliseconds to go back and forth. I say this is an easy way to look at it because it's simple and static. It isn't completely true in all circumstances though and that must be noted. It is possible to take longer to receive than send and the opposite as well.

Yes, you ping every host every game as a client/player. The IP address, while not visible to you, is obtained via Xbox Live.

I sincerely hope that your post was sarcasm. If not, then please take this information into consideration.

Re: Couples for Black ops 2

donotreply@activision.com — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 18:09:44 GMT

A thread for this exists in the off-topic sub-forum. Please visit it.

Chief Forum Moderator

Modern Warfare, Black Ops, Ghosts

Re: Yet another lag post. Current Discussions

donotreply@activision.com — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:25:04 GMT

TheOSUistheSHIZ wrote:

I hope you read my post apologizing for coming off wrong.

I did. I appreciate the further explanation. I've just been getting back in to the swing of things here at my office since returning from E3. Wasn't able to comment back.

Re: Yet another lag post. Current Discussions

donotreply@activision.com — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:19:40 GMT

Nubdub wrote:

Its been up there for 3 days now. At first I thought it was a mistake but was beginning to wonder. Thanks for the update.

Three days ago we also lost a lot of our UK posters to a bug.

Re: Yet another lag post. Current Discussions

donotreply@activision.com — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:10:05 GMT

Nubdub wrote:

Foxhound-Pro wrote:

Nubdub wrote:

If there is not a problem, why did they make adjustments in the last patch? You are saying the game plays perfectly for you yet a patch was releasing in terms admitting it was not perfect.

Regarding trusting the developers to adjust things properly. You mean kinda like people trusted toyota to make a car that the gas pedal didn't stick to the floor and had to be sued to even admit there was an issue? Or maybe like firestone who made faulty tires that the steel belting was separating from the base of the tires and caused many injurys and deaths before the government forced a recall? So we should always trust corporations? Not sure I agree with that.
Because the game is in a live environment where tweaks that may make sense based on an environment that is continually expanding could have possibly become outdated?

Let's stay away from hyperbole. No one has said that the game runs perfectly. There is also no reason to compare Treyarch/Activision so drastically to the likes of Toyota or Firestone in which people are actually dying. No one is dying here. Furthermore the issue with lag is not as concrete as a pedal which can be stuck or a tire which can be stress tested. The Internet is a variable. It's much harder to measure and prove. The problem is that people echo chamber that an issue exists and simply want action taken at face value.

I'll also note that resorting to hyperbole and this level of comparison makes you look unreasonable. It's okay if you have issues with the game. We all understand that it's possible, but there are many of us who refuse to polarize that the game is inherently broken.

I feel the need to elaborate on this subject since some dev felt it appropriate to put an out of context post as a sticky on the main page of the forums. My post was a response to someone saying we should blindly trust Treyarch/Activision to make correct decisions on adjustments to the "anti-lag" code on the game. My comparision was only to show that just being a corporation does not always mean you make correct decisions. Sometimes it takes consumer advication to influence corporations to stear them towards making correct decisions. In no way was saying someone would die if the corrections were not made. It was simply a hyperbole to show that being a corporation does not always mean your are making correct decisions. I, and many others have patiently (or impatiently) waited 3 years for something positive to be done and have yet to see any results that have a positive influence on the "anti-lag" out of sync issues, specifically for the host player.

First and foremost: A developer did not decide to make it a sticky. It's simply displaying that way incorrectly.

Proof: Here's a tweet from Treyarch that is a few months old pointing to the patch notes for the 360 section. - https://twitter.com/Treyarch/status/311452185122717696 - It links to the article in question. This is and only is the forum having a hiccup.

Re: GAMER COUPLES

donotreply@activision.com — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:16:28 GMT

My wife and I play together often.

Re: How to report an exploit

donotreply@activision.com — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 23:27:05 GMT

You can forward it to me and @ATVIAssist.

Chief Forum Moderator

Modern Warfare, Black Ops, Ghosts