A presumptuous topic perhaps, but I couldn't help myself :shrug: . Taking into account just how much of this forum is filled with speculation over what would or wouldn't work well in Skyrim and whether or not the devs are moving in the right direction, one would think that an open beta of the game (where a select number of fans try it out a few months prior to release) would only benefit the game (and future TES games as well). But let's be critical, would that really be such a good idea and why (not)?

Better question. How would they distribute such a beta? And with them being as secretive as they tend to be, how can they keep things under wraps?

Useful? Maybe. Practical? Not a chance in hell.

I honestly say it would have its uses...but coming from their recent game releases, they've never had any sort of preliminary playability before a TES/Fallout game came out. I would like it but I think that it should remain the same, I wouldn't mind a whole series of gameplay footage hosted by Todd Howard.

Useful: Yes
Practical: No

This isn't an MMO, as I'm sure it's been stated prior. I voted "pointless" because an open beta almost never helps. It's a marketing gimmick. No one is actually testing anything, everyone is there because they want to try the game early.


No thank you. I don't need the internet flooded with spoilers and a game that's just as buggy as it would've been already.

Bethesda games have closed beta restricted to developers only.

Don't ever expect they to release an open beta, people would leak it, and there would be a massive flood of spoilers which would be very unpleasant.

It would not benefit the game, because players don't have the same critical sense as the developers and QA team.

They have play testers that look for glitches. Thus is how singleplayer games are debugged.

I think it would be useful, especially for finding bugs, and compatibility issues with different combinations of PC hardware.

The more Quality Control, the better.

There are legally binding contracts to keep people from leaking info - if they leak info, they can have their butts sued off.

EDIT: A closed beta, that's good.

The beta would have spoilers.
And I'm sure there won't be long time before someone who plays the beta will start posting every single detail on the internet.

It would be interesting to see, and I think it would help work out some of the kinks. Of course they could do an extensive closed beta, and I'd be just as happy.

Open Beta? Never. They will most certainly have in-house testing but there will never be anything that involves the public. Open Betas are primarily for MMOs and its used as a way to stress test their systems. TESV doesn't need to test this so its not really that useful or practical.

They are. Just like Fallout 3, every single employee who's work on the content is complete moves onto playing the game all day everyday until it goes gold. They don't need us.

The only time I've seen open betas is for the following game types.

1)Small indy games such as Minecraft.

2)Games like COD. But even then the beta is just for the multiplayer.

3)MMO's.


Never seen one for a big name single player game.

No. They do closed beta's. Which is how it should be.

I completely disagree with the consensus here - a semi-public beta, with a correspondingly serious non-disclosure agreement, might be beneficial to the overall quality assurance of Bethesda games. We all remember the first few days after Oblivion came out and users were running into CTDs left and right - many people still complain about CTDs to this day (though to be fair they are trying to shoehorn in 200+ mods). A well-organized and vetted semi-public / closed beta program with the proper agreements for non-disclosure would help Bethesda test their games with a larger group - and if they were very worried about leaks, just provide a bare-bones ESM file that only contains minor areas and quests. As an Oblivion modder for several years now I know that I won't run into the same type of bugs that mod-users will - this principle applies to Bethesda as well. After months of working on something like Skyrim, testers can become accustomed to a particular style of play - sometimes unconsciously - that will lower the amount of bugs they encounter. Adding in more testers would decrease the chances of this effect occurring over the entire group, considering that these new individuals would have differing play-styles and vastly different computer resources at their disposal.

This is a must.

I dont want to see beta version at all. Even if Bethesda make it availible free for all I dont download it. Wanna see all game features and wanna to see them perfect

It is unneeded in singleplayer games. They have in house testing. The CTD issues aren't really issues of the game design, it's the engine which is brand new this time around. I just feel this call for public beta testing is just an attempt to get a hold of a demo version. I say wait til it comes out and play it and let it be a surprise and let them test the game the way everyone does for singleplayer games.

As someone who has signed one, they are called NDAs or Non-Disclosure Agreements. If someone broke it, they'd have hell to pay. I would not risk the litigation that would follow.




They have a QA team to.

I asked a Bethesda employ about a beta specifically and was told if I wanted to partake I would have to apply with the QA team they use for a job. There will be no Skyrim beta, closed or open.

P.S.

And my assumption is they would use Steam if they did, but they aren't doing one, so.... :shrug:

Pointless, which was also the most popular choice so far, oddly enough. Didn't quite expect that. We'll have to pay for the public beta, like always How does consoles and updates work? Is the game installed or played only by disc content? Reason I ask is that I'm shocked about the amount of fixes that we need "the unofficial patch" for. It's like they don't care anymore when a game is reasonably stable, instead of keep on fixing them.

But voted pointless, as 99% would use it to *play* the game early without knowing what testing is all about. Public beta only after release, where you'd still need the game, sounds better, but only if there is plans for a prolonged support of it instead of only the most critical bugs. I'm on PC myself, and I often see complains about game being consolidized (?). As they can't use mods, they sure seem neglected badly after release.

Want to test? Sign up to become one, if even possible, then the NDA that comes with it.

There are a ton of reasons this is never ever ever going to happen:

1. This is not an MMO. While MMO betas are used to find bugs, their main focus is server stress testing. You can't stress your servers with a handful of QA staff, so you need outside help.

2. This is not an MMO: part 2. You can't beat an MMO in 5-10 hours, and MMOs offer far more replay value then single player games. If there was a public beta for Skyrim, casual fans of the series (the vast majority of those who would buy the game), would beat the game in the beta and have no reason to buy it. Sure the hardcoe, and mod using groups would still buy it but sales would suffer drastically.

3. This is not an MMO: part 3. The other main reason MMOs require a beta is due to their complexity, and challenge it would be for a small QA team to test everything fully. A single player game like Skyrim lacks that complexity, and thus lacks the need for a more stringent testing phase.

4. Oblivion nor Fallout 3 were all that buggy and both games saw a smooth launch. Were there crashes and some issues? Yes, but the launch wasn't as terrible as some would like to say it was.

Single player games just don't get public betas. What reason would you have to buy the game? If a game like COD gets a beta, your still going to buy the game if you like it because you can't "beat" the MP aspect of COD and many gamers will play it for hundreds of hours. You CAN however beat Skyrim and have no reason to buy it. Sure the developers could make a special beta version... but why the hell would they waste all that time to perhaps catch a couple CTD issues? Wouldn't make sense at all.

I don't think betas work very well outside of multiplayer games. In Halo Reach and Gears of War, betas work great. For a game like Skyrim, I'd say no.

Betas don't work well for single player games. All single player games have are their game and if you beta test that then you just played the game without having to pay. Frankly, beta testing a single player is basically a cry for a demo version.

Beta!? For a single player RPG... what!?

Open betas are only good for MMO's