Jump to content


Photo

NO releasing 'betas' rule


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Detail

Detail

    King Detail

  • Hosted
  • 7,767 posts
  • Location:Dayonic
  • Projects:Dayvi.com
  •  Blu Spy

Posted 26 February 2004 - 08:12 PM

NO releasing 'betas' is a new rule for all hosted mod projects.

Beta has been lame long enough and i will not allow it here. Only release fully working mods. You can always have 'version 2.0' at a later time.

#2 Daz

Daz

    title available

  • Hosted
  • 2,654 posts
  •  Revora Co-Founder

Posted 26 February 2004 - 08:30 PM

So people just call the same thing something different.
What's the point?

#3 Beowulf

Beowulf

    Shipgirl

  • Advisors
  • 7,219 posts
  •  Azur Lane Fangirl

Posted 26 February 2004 - 09:29 PM

What about internal betas? That doesn't seem fair.

NZ.org | BBPCG
Discord: The Astronomer#1314
Steam


#4 Chronomaw

Chronomaw
  • New Members
  • 19 posts
  • Location:USA, Ohio

Posted 26 February 2004 - 10:14 PM

:uh: Huh? How can you not release a beta if you expect the mod to do well? Beta's are 80% of what get's people interested in a mod.

#5 Detail

Detail

    King Detail

  • Hosted
  • 7,767 posts
  • Location:Dayonic
  • Projects:Dayvi.com
  •  Blu Spy

Posted 26 February 2004 - 10:16 PM

An internal beta is internal, so it's not released.


You don't have to name it something diffrent. If needed you could call your beta a demo. However it's still an excuse for releasing an un-finished product. I'm just feed up with seeing people releasing lame un-finished things.

Saying "this is an beta release" is like saying "this is an un-finished release". Because you use the word "beta" people accept it.
I wont.

#6 Beowulf

Beowulf

    Shipgirl

  • Advisors
  • 7,219 posts
  •  Azur Lane Fangirl

Posted 26 February 2004 - 11:57 PM

As Chronomaw said, betas are what get people interested in mods in the first place. Unfinished, yeah, but that's good for bughunting. Your staff may not always be able to find every single bug or glitch by themselves. A public beta is good but not for all incomplete releases.

NZ.org | BBPCG
Discord: The Astronomer#1314
Steam


#7 Opals25

Opals25

    Aiee!

  • Members
  • 134 posts
  • Location:Secret place
  • Projects:Being a dick.

Posted 27 February 2004 - 12:08 AM

Not to emntion these Betas will track down mopst of the bugs. Sometimes, the beta testers wont catch everything, and these release betas let more people get at it and will increase the finding of the bugs.

#8 Beowulf

Beowulf

    Shipgirl

  • Advisors
  • 7,219 posts
  •  Azur Lane Fangirl

Posted 27 February 2004 - 12:37 AM

Exactly my point but not every beta release needs to be public.

NZ.org | BBPCG
Discord: The Astronomer#1314
Steam


#9 Detail

Detail

    King Detail

  • Hosted
  • 7,767 posts
  • Location:Dayonic
  • Projects:Dayvi.com
  •  Blu Spy

Posted 27 February 2004 - 01:11 AM

This rule applys to public beta tests. Sure you can have internal ones, no problem with that.
If a bug appears in your first release then you have a second release. The idea being, you do not expect any bugs, but there is one.

#10 Detail

Detail

    King Detail

  • Hosted
  • 7,767 posts
  • Location:Dayonic
  • Projects:Dayvi.com
  •  Blu Spy

Posted 27 February 2004 - 02:11 AM

Thats semi-internal.


Releasing un-finished projects to the public and using a lame name as an excuse is not alowed.

#11 Paranoid

Paranoid

    title available

  • New Members
  • 321 posts

Posted 27 February 2004 - 04:49 AM

I think this sounds fair. Alot of the betas that are released around here are jokes.

#12 Detail

Detail

    King Detail

  • Hosted
  • 7,767 posts
  • Location:Dayonic
  • Projects:Dayvi.com
  •  Blu Spy

Posted 11 March 2004 - 11:17 AM

Heres the rule cleaned up a bit:

No releasing un-finished work
First, lets all understand that mods never usaly reach a 'finished' stange. Theres always more to be done and added. Always a new and better version in the works.
Because theres always another version, people call there mod a beta. This is un-needed.
Beta is the testing stage and a mod should have this. There will be bugs which the beta testers do not find. When the general public reports and error is should be addressed with a patch for people who already have the mod. This patch should be applyed to the main download, so new users don't have to download the mod and the patch (unless file size/upload time cause problmes).

The first public release should be called 'version 1'. It makes sense to the players. If a patch is released with some bug fixes, it's best to call this 'version 1.1' with information somewhere mentioning that theres been an update.

If a super new and updated version of the mod is released with many new features; it deserves a whole number (as opposed to a decimal) 'version 2'.
Some people may thing that this is a sequal, so it's best to mentione the word "version" somewhere noticable.



It's basicaly the same 'no betas' rule, but with more depth. How does that sound?

#13 Guest_ImmoMan_*

Guest_ImmoMan_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 March 2004 - 12:08 PM

Sounds reasonable. So once you're ready to begin public testing, what do you do (I'm sure that testing forum is involved somewhere)?

And you mentioned patches. Do you know any good installer or patcher that I can use?

#14 Detail

Detail

    King Detail

  • Hosted
  • 7,767 posts
  • Location:Dayonic
  • Projects:Dayvi.com
  •  Blu Spy

Posted 11 March 2004 - 12:26 PM

You ask for a Testing forum, if you want it can be password protected. Then you find some testers. Ask them what system thay have, if thay player LAN or skirmish and basic stuff like that. List there exact forum names in the testing hub forum, once there added thay will be able to see your testing forum. In there you put a link to the download and ask them to test away.

Theres no easy way to patch a Generals mod. You might end up releasing an updated files and sking them to put it in the correct folder.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users