Locke355 said:
lol.. nice logical fallacy.
I just saw the window break in my house. As it broke, a feather floated into my room from a doorway on the other side of the room. The feather MUST HAVE broken the window!
Hmmm - You're correct that correlation doesn't prove causation. I certainly didn't offer statistically-significant results - I merely offered anecdotes.
Given this, I'll add a little "logic" to the argument. Let's start with a question - why does the open source approach work for some applications? One answer - because lots of people push on the code to find bugs and then implement solutions.
The same holds true in a beta-test. The more people that push on the code, stress it, work it till it breaks the more likely you are to find problems. While finding the problem doesn't guarantee that it gets fixed by the DEV team, you certainly can't fix the code if you don't know that its broken.
You further assert that beta testers provide little information and that in some cases they provide incorrect information. By this logic, we shouldn't beta test at all. We should just code away and then release.
Following this course of action would be clearly ridiculous.
Regardless of whether beta-testers offer good or bad information generally for other games/applications, there is significant evidence that the Tribes community provides useful feedback about bugs when asked to do so. The z0dd's were overwhelmed with useful bug findings by highly motivated tribers during the open classic beta. As a result of the z0dd's hard work, the mod has been a massive success and has even won over some longstanding T2 haters.
Similarly, the TR2 community organized itself (thx to Mojo, RK and Kinch) to fix the significant number of bugs that the closed TR2 beta failed to find. Sadly their efforts came too late/their volunteer time proved too limited and KP's amazing mod died an untimely death.
[In fairness on the TR2 point, many other factors in addition to bugs combined to kill TR2. That said, bugs/gameplay issues were hugely important in its demise.]
Tribers care. Indeed, many are fanatical. Despite your cynicism on this point, you clearly care a lot about Tribes yourself. You've played it off an on for 3+ years (probably 4+ I'm not sure when you joined IE). Moreover, you frequently post your view about how T3 should develop. Your ideas are generally good. My guess is that your feedback would be of very high quality.
The great thing is, you're enthusiasm for Tribes isn't isolated or unique.
Given this tremendous level of commitment/enthusiasm, why would you suggest that an open beta would fail or be "ridiculous?"
Building a large installed base of users is critical for T3. If the game is a buggy pos at release as T2 was (again closed beta), the game will never achieve the success that it might have absent the early stumble (even if the bugs are fixed quickly). Once a network stumbles, it is often impossible to get it moving again.
Recognizing this, a closed beta risks leaving a lot of $$$ on the table. In addition to finding bugs, an open beta generates lots of enthusiasm for the game's ultimate release.
Edit: As I argued in a different post, the beta has to be reasonably playable to be open. It makes perfect sense to have a small closed testing team until that point. If you want to be conservative to minimize potential negative PR effects, open it gradually as "risk goes out of the game" - but do open it.
