I guess we're back here now:I think this is relevant here, here is the quote :
This is the exact problem I'm referring to rehashed again. You can argue that the standard for beta testing should be universally returned to the standard set by IBM, that according to you it should mean something different, but it makes no sense whatsoever to tell the majority that they don't know the meaning of a term when the majority decides the meaning, and it works in conveying that meaning. For most of humanity it doesn't mean what it means to you. The poster could have written:"most people (including developers) don't actually know what alpha or beta were supposed to mean"I think your comment highlights quite a common issue; most people (including developers) don't actually know what alpha and beta mean.
For all I know he's completely right about it, I'm not an engineer and have no skin in this game. I just think it's all beside the point. When gaming companies use the term "beta testing" I know what to expect. In some cases I'm slightly disappointed, and in some I'm pleasantly surprised. In all cases I weigh it against the money spent and former experiences with games, and my own experiences in making them (not computer). I don't see widespread fraud, but I do see some level of incompetence or delusions of grandeur.I think you guys might give him a point here instead of trying to save one's face on arguing.
I mean, I won't argue that it doesn't exist, and maybe I'm biased due to my selection of games to begin with, but I don't know of many games that I personally considered purchasing that were scams in one way or another.I mean we are discussing games like Bannerlord which are kind of half-OK, but there are games out there which literally do not even work but people somehow sold them and got away with the money. In which other legal sector would you be able to get away such a thing?
And I am completely on board when it comes to bigger productions, especially firms that sell games as a service. Mainly since I suspect it will only slightly affect the bottom line and improve quality immensely. But any regulation needs to address the fact that a huge bulk of the industry are still just barely above the level of amateurs trying to create something enjoyable. If the Rise to Ruins guy were forced to employ professional tier testing or face legal ramifications the game would be a pipe-dream.And finally, I agree that most of these companies do not do this out of "evil intensions," but if we as the customers open our eyes a bit and introduce accountability in legal terms into our relationship with game developers, we will all benefit from it. It begins with "douches" like myself (as someone called it) "ranting" about stuff; as change often does...
Oh no, I understood. I just think your rhetoric doesn't match your intention at all, since you emphasized the definition of beta testing way too much, and I don't really agree with the premise that it's fraud, by and large. Most of the untested products we're sold aren't big productions, by volume. You can make an argument with a bigger firm like Taleworlds, which I would also disagree with, since fraud is fairly narrow in scope legally, but a single developer publishing an early access title? Those have been sprouting from the ground in massive numbers for the past few years. Intent to deceive, as opposed to necessary evil to continue production?If you really read the posts to understand them and not to just object to them because they are outside your comfort zone, you would have realised by now that my point since the beginning is exposing a fraud scheme where we are sold products that are not tested. I told you what kind of tests I am talking about, even in some detail so that you can see the difference. Yet you still deem this a "disambiguation" issue. Like, gaming companies get away with cutting off at least half of development time in every project by avoiding testing altogether and marketing acceptance testing as the products official test stage, and criticising this is just discussion on disambiguation. Alright. So my hope is that you really did not read my posts, the only other option is you lack the capacity to understand.
You wanted to stop talking a post ago. You're right, you can change the world. I doubt it'll be this conversation on a game forum, but hey, crazier things have happened. Though I have serious doubts that avoiding a disambiguation entry on wikipedia for "Beta Testing (computer games)" as opposed to "Beta Testing (software engineering)" is the best you can do with your time.I never stopped talking because some sheep asked me to comply with the norm, and I am not gonna start now. I was a teenager when I already got used to the good old "you cannot change the world" bull****. To me, what is right or wrong is independent from what power I have to change anything. I will continue to speak for what I believe is right and your opposition to it means nothing.
You're posting on a public forum and wondering why people don't put up with ramblings of someone raging against market systems and terms that have dynamically evolved over more than a decade. I've read your post, and it's the same as everything else you wrote. "But to us it means X "Apart from that, I tried to say this kindly but what I talk about is none of your f*ing business.
Pretty unproductive to spend your time here then.And I suggest anyone looking for joy in my comments to look elsewhere, call your lover or something... I am literally shouting "fraud" since the beginning, there is nothing to enjoy here.
The terms in these examples have changed in colloquial use a long time before the discipline acknowledged the change and reacted to it. If there had been no popular change in usage, there would have been no reason whatsoever to change the terminology within the discipline. It is not: Public change -> field change -> meaning change, but rather public change -> meaning change -> field change.If you look at my posts, you will find that everytime I said or implied "if terminology changes it happens through the discipline." You gave us another fine example of
exactly what I am talking about.
I am not confusing it, you are! And that has been my whole point Gaming companies sell "beta testing" as a form of testing and everyone here is buying it. It is only a form of "acceptance testing" which is not formal, structured, etc; i.e. not development testing!
It works in adjusting consumer expectations. It works semantically.Hahahahhahaa.... (literally lolled though)
Whether customers are smart or not is in no way shape or form connected to their acceptance of the exact specifications of what engineers consider alpha or beta testing. A customer can be wholly unhappy with a product without it being apparently falsely advertised as a beta. A customer can be extremely happy with a product despite it being falsely advertised as a beta. The two things barely have any correlation, because the customer has a rudimentary semantic idea of what beta means, even if the product sold as a beta leads to mass heart attacks among engineers everywhere.No, it is the same as saying "there will always be snake oil salesmen" which is historically false Customers get smarter and fraud schemes get old.
And I have said from the get-go that it's futile. You may continue to do so, but I doubt it'll spark much joy. For now beta testing is what it is, in gaming and the world at large. In the end, linguistically, words mean whatever the majority think they mean. Even terminology. Disambiguation is a thing.Swimming against the current but I already told you that is what I do by nature. Cant help that.
I have responded in-depth to your posts before, but you're a senior engineer talking about linguistic phenomena and consistently confusing opinion for fact (i.e.: Terminology within specific fields have universally accepted definitions that are inherently unchangeable unless some authority within said field says otherwise, especially relating to usage outside of said field).Maybe you shouldnt judge whole discussions from some "last line." Every information I provided is patently correct, I know because there are countless technical reasons for it. If anyone is interested, I can continue to discuss them but all of you guys will be bored The bottomline is we are constantly being sold products that are not tested. Imagine producing and selling something without knowing if it works. That is the kind of fraud these companies are pulling everytime. And I know (thanks to you guys) I am a lone voice in an ocean, but it is in my nature to speak what I believe is right regardless of the consequences.
There are thousands of examples where exactly this has happened. Ethics boards have decided that terminology isn't appropriate due to a change of public perception and/or use, so a different term has been adopted within the field. This is especially obvious when it comes to terminology of disabilities.By the way, let's do an experiment. When you see a doctor (literally any of your choosing) start arguing medical terminology with them; and then continue to ask for sources for everything they say. Then the doctor (remember, of your choosing) will show you the humility that I failed to display here; bring all those lessons from that dialog to me and I promise I will adjust my attitude accordingly in the future. My guess is the doctor will "put you in your place" much quicker than me, but who knows... Are you game?
I was fairly amused by your aggressive and patronizing last line. I'm not sure if you understand how incredibly demeaning "to put someone in their place" comes across, but I can assure you that it's not the least bit pleasant. And I'm guessing it also wasn't intended as such. That is hilarious to me.Why? Because I said Alpha/Beta testing was developed by IBM? But that is correct information. They defined what they developed and I gave you a definition from the most trusted source I could find. What is wrong or missing here?
My sides, hah. You're a hoot.I failed to find anything by IBM on this matter, but above definition should be enough to put you in your place.
No, you have a naive understanding of how the world and language works.You do not get the point
If anyone had any interest in using "metacarpal bones" in a different context, and that context spread like a wildfire, a doctor would have no other choice than to accept that the new context is just as valid. I also wasn't aware than engineering came with an in-depth knowledge of linguistics. I don't know what they do in your country, but at least in mine it's not even remotely related.By the way, you are debating a senior engineer about engineering terminology. Do you this with doctors as well? Or just us? Like, do you go to a doctor and say "nah, this is what we call metacarpal bones today; catch up doc, language evolves!"
Look, you can be disappointed with the product all you want. You can also be slightly annoyed that they're apparently misusing a term that's dear to your heart. But the real issue is that the game isn't up to your standards as a whole, regardless of whether anyone calls what they're doing right now a beta or a banana. If it were up to your standards in every other way imaginable and they called it a beta, despite critical functionality failures on other machines, or one of the multitudes of versions during the banana testing phase, you most likely wouldn't demand that people "should shame the developers".You would not, but we give gaming companies a pass in this and they almost never fail to disappoint in the end.
People can. And they do. Screaming against the current that is the evolution of language is futile at best. Last I checked Linguists nowadays have completely abandoned the idea of prescriptive grammar and vocabulary. Funnily enough, evolution "should" never be applied to anything outside the clear boundaries of biology, yet here we are. And memes aren't funny pictures with a caption, yet here we are. And what you should or shouldn't do is really something that's in the realm of philosophy, so we can't really decide about any of this without an authoritative philosopher present. People do not operate under any artificial constraints of an orderly system. If something even remotely works semantically, it'll be adapted in any way the majority see fit.you cannot say "such and such gaming company defines 'electron' as an ambulance;"
Everything is relative, and your mileage may vary depending on your environment. In western societies of plenty, especially in well-off industries like entertainment, I highly doubt that many would need to actively deceive others. What I don't doubt, is that many in the industry have issues evaluating their own skillset or are capable of gaging the complexity of long term projects.First of all there are so many that try to deceive others. Second, I doubt they feel bad or they would post responses to people's concerns saying how sorry they were for disappointing people and at the very they are ignoring the concerns of their players by not posting. I think it is mostly laziness, incompetence, indifference. I do though think they also at the very least have knowingly mislead people but you can't PROVE they have not lied.
I won't excuse it, I'll challenge the notion in the first place.Well said, completely agree and its still on them for their pathetic lack of communication. I dare anyone on the forums to excuse that.