Why 1.5.10 is the absolute worst version

Currently viewing this thread:

You do not get the point
No, you have a naive understanding of how the world and language works.

(Edit to make this less harsh: I understand where you're coming from, and I sympathize with your stance. It would make many things a lot easier if things were as well structured as you suggest, but that's simply not the reality. Everything is immensely complicated and chaotic, including most of science.)

Terminology is no less subject to change from outside a field going in, as it is from inside a field itself. And there is NEVER complete uniformity in acceptance or usage of a term even within a field. There are no absolute rules as to what can or can not be done in arbitrary systems. There simply is no central authority that can dictate anything in science. You can make your argument why something should be called X, and if enough of your peers accept the usage it can be a new standard. But even a new standard is subject to change.

Also, you're a senior engineer. Why should I listen to you in regards to game development terminology? We are talking about terminology here, the meaning of these words do not change unless through the respective discipline. Unless the all knowing council of game developers redefines what beta means in their field, it can never be redefined.

Not responding to any of the analogies presented and cherry-picking one example that you think works (electron) doesn't really address anything. I instantly thought of a software framework, developed and maintained by github, but then I realized you were talking about the bird.
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!" :smile:
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.
You would not, but we give gaming companies a pass in this and they almost never fail to disappoint in the end.
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".
 
Last edited:
Not only he didn't quote the IBM definition he referenced, he also moved the goalpost from "finding bugs in beta" to "I'm talking about basic functions failing" and pulled the "I'm a senior engineer" card.
There is no reason to quote a definition if it is terminology. Just like how no one quotes the definition of electron (or do you?), or gravity, or whatever other terminology. They ARE set in stone but for a layman this may be a bit too hard to grasp. Again, their definitions only change through the discipline, not "common usage" or "that is how language works." If we were debating a social issue or something outside of science or engineering, I would make sure to throw references around.

Secondly you are right, I moved the goal post because while in my first message I said "beta is not for debugging," people who do not know better countered it with "every software has bugs" which is just truism. I moved the post to functions failing to emphasize the point which is otherwise lost, that is, software has to be tested just like any other product.

And finally, I pulled the engineer card because the person I was discussing the issue with thought having beta tested some products gave him the credentials to debate Software Validation. The issue here is that you guys see the tip of the iceberg and think that is the whole story. When I say "beta version" is not formal testing, you do not even get what I am saying but still continue the debate. However, I will leave it here. Just f*ing continue "beta testing" products for these companies and let's see if things get better in gaming.
 
Last edited:

Grank

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVC
There is no reason to quote a definition if it is terminology.
Seriously? You're dissing someone's understanding of beta testing using a particular definition that you think is right, so you have to. Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass. Here's an example. According to Linus Torvald beta testing's main purpose is finding bugs. When did he say this and what's my source? Screw you just trust me I'm a veteran software engineer and I mentioned Linus Torvald you know nothing! See how stupid that is? That's how you sound.

I mean, if you're that sure about it, why not just pull that definition you've been flaunting? Is it because you actually forgot the whole quote and it turns out the definition also includes finding bugs? You know, like countless other definitions of beta testing? But sure, just run away now that I have exposed your lack of basic scientific thinking.
 
Seriously? You're dissing someone's understanding of beta testing using a particular definition that you think is right, so you have to. Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass. Here's an example. According to Linus Torvald beta testing's main purpose is finding bugs. When did he say this and what's my source? Screw you just trust me I'm a veteran software engineer and I mentioned Linus Torvald you know nothing! See how stupid that is? That's how you sound.

I mean, if you're that sure about it, why not just pull that definition you've been flaunting? Is it because you actually forgot the whole quote and it turns out the definition also includes finding bugs? You know, like countless other definitions of beta testing? But sure, just run away now that I have exposed your lack of basic scientific thinking.
What you don't get is that what I say, what Linus says or what anyone else says does not matter. I already said a thousand times there is already one definition to it and all engineers already know this definition. And by the way Linus would never say such a stupid thing unless out of context.

Do you ask your doctor for sources, too? You don't, but since you played enough video games to debate software engineering with anyone, here is a definition with its source for you:

Beta testing: Operational testing by potential and/or existing users/customers at an external site not otherwise involved with the developers, to determine whether or not a component or system satisfies the user/customer needs and fits within the business processes. Beta testing is often employed as a form of external acceptance testing for off-the-shelf software in order to acquire feedback from the market.
- Standard Glossary of Terms Used in Software Testing Version 3.01, International Software Testing Qualifications Board

I failed to find anything by IBM on this matter, but above definition should be enough to put you in your place.
 
I failed to find anything by IBM on this matter, but above definition should be enough to put you in your place.
My sides, hah. You're a hoot.

Oh ****, what's that noise? I think it's the sound of millions angrily demanding their money back because the whole gaming industry has falsely sold a public beta as something that god himself has determined it inherently is not and can never be.

But I guess you were right, a small percentage of the world population somewhere got together and defined something as something. Strangely enough I haven't found anyone particularly arguing against that.
 
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?
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.
 
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.
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 :smile: 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.
-----
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? :smile:
 
Last edited:
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 :smile: 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.
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).

I could even agree with the gist of your point: Maybe they should call it banana testing to respect the feelings of engineers far and wide, but the industry and consumerbase as a whole has settled on selling us non-beta open beta's, and it works, and nobody cares about anything besides the end product. So unless there's a populistic upheaval of humanity focused on renaming early access game releases, calling games a beta will be colloquially understood to mean whatever a game company puts out before they think it is finished.

And I certainly am not judging a whole discussion from a "last line", but being unpleasant won't help you getting your point across.

Regarding your cute edit:
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? :smile:
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.
 
Last edited:

Grank

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVC
I failed to find anything by IBM on this matter.
Oh my. Then I wonder where did you pull that definition from. Your ass?

But to your credit you managed to pull something. Let's discuss that source then. I'll be generous and just discuss that specific source and not cross-check it with other definitions by other experts or literatures. I'll even ignore the newer version of that glossary. Let's see.
Beta testing: Operational testing by potential and/or existing users/customers at an external site not otherwise involved with the developers, to determine whether or not a component or system satisfies the user/customer needs and fits within the business processes. Beta testing is often employed as a form of external acceptance testing for off-the-shelf software in order to acquire feedback from the market.
Now for context, let's pull the definition of alpha testing first, because to quote you, "Alpha testing should already have validated the software, i.e. it should be more or less bug-free when it reaches Beta stage."
Simulated or actual operational testing by potential users/customers or an independent test team at the developers' site, but outside the development organization. Alpha testing is often employed for off-the-shelf software as a form of internal acceptance testing.
See, the difference between alpha and beta lies in the site of the test and the population (which checks out with one of my previous posts), and has no specifics on whether or not the product should be "bug-free when it reaches beta stage." It actually refers to the same thing, acceptance testing, which we will discuss after dissecting this definition.

"Whether or not the system satisfies the user needs and fits the business process." Now let's take an example of the bug mentioned in the OP. Inability to give commands after battle. Does that satisfy the user needs? Nope. Neither would crashes and other bugs or errors. I'll refer to "Functional Suitability" from ISO 25010 for this particular quality. A bug or error violates the sub-characteristic "Functional Correctness" of "Functional Suitability". Now let's look back at the glossary. According to the definition of beta testing, it is where we handle this, so you're wrong.

Now let's move on to acceptance testing. Again, referring to the very same glossary you mentioned, let's look at the definition.
Formal testing with respect to user needs, requirements, and business processes conducted to determine whether or not a system satisfies the acceptance criteria and to enable the user, customers or other authorized entity to determine whether or not to accept the system.
Pretty much the same thing except for the mention of acceptance criteria, which is defined as:
The exit criteria that a component or system must satisfy in order to be accepted by a user, customer, or other authorized entity.

Now, where is the part which says that finding bugs and fixing them is not part of beta testing? Try to be polite this time. Save yourself the embarrassment.

Edit: It's 1AM where I live, so take your time pulling whatever you want to pull. I'm going to sleep.
 
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).
I am not confusing it, you are! And that has been my whole point :smile: 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!
I could even agree with the gist of your point: Maybe they should call it banana testing to respect the feelings of engineers far and wide, but the industry and consumerbase as a whole has settled on selling us non-beta open beta's,
Yes, again exactly my point, Thank You! The industry (snake oil sellers) has settled on selling the consumbase (snake oil buyers) on selling non-beta open betas. Well said. And I speak against it, so what? Swimming against the current but I already told you that is what I do by nature. Cant help that.
and it works,
Hahahahhahaa.... (literally lolled though)
and nobody cares about anything besides the end product.
The one that works, right? :smile:
So unless there's a populistic upheaval of humanity focused on renaming early access game releases, calling games a beta will be colloquially understood to mean whatever a game company puts out before they think it is finished.
No, it is the same as saying "there will always be snake oil salesmen" which is historically false :smile: Customers get smarter and fraud schemes get old.
And I certainly am not judging a whole discussion from a "last line", but being unpleasant won't help you getting your point across.
I am sorry about all the unpleasantries. Let's just say I am "socially challenged."
Regarding your cute edit:

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.
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.

Oh my. Then I wonder where did you pull that definition from. Your ass?

But to your credit you managed to pull something. Let's discuss that source then. I'll be generous and just discuss that specific source and not cross-check it with other definitions by other experts or literatures. I'll even ignore the newer version of that glossary. Let's see.

Now for context, let's pull the definition of alpha testing first, because to quote you, "Alpha testing should already have validated the software, i.e. it should be more or less bug-free when it reaches Beta stage."

See, the difference between alpha and beta lies in the site of the test and the population (which checks out with one of my previous posts), and has no specifics on whether or not the product should be "bug-free when it reaches beta stage." It actually refers to the same thing, acceptance testing, which we will discuss after dissecting this definition.

"Whether or not the system satisfies the user needs and fits the business process." Now let's take an example of the bug mentioned in the OP. Inability to give commands after battle. Does that satisfy the user needs? Nope. Neither would crashes and other bugs or errors. I'll refer to "Functional Suitability" from ISO 25010 for this particular quality. A bug or error violates the sub-characteristic "Functional Correctness" of "Functional Suitability". Now let's look back at the glossary. According to the definition of beta testing, it is where we handle this, so you're wrong.

Now let's move on to acceptance testing. Again, referring to the very same glossary you mentioned, let's look at the definition.

Pretty much the same thing except for the mention of acceptance criteria, which is defined as:


Now, where is the part which says that finding bugs and fixing them is not part of beta testing? Try to be polite this time. Save yourself the embarrassment.

Edit: It's 1AM where I live, so take your time pulling whatever you want to pull. I'm going to sleep.
Sorry, but you are not worth further discussion.

Edit: Couldn't keep it inside.

You are essentially an ignorant who looked up technical definitions somewhere and thought he understood them all now; while both naturally and demonstrably understanding none of them. In your little mind, you already understand Alpha/Beta testing because these two definitions already cover everything. Right? If Alpha testing is nothing more than what that definition says, and the same with Beta testing; and since you understand both you are ready to take on any testing project! Genius! :smile:

Software Verification is the process we call "development testing", or more commonly just "testing" in the field. This process is called "Alpha Testing" in the Alpha/Beta testing methodology.

Alpha testing covers all kinds of formal tests under the general categories (or layers) of unit tests, integration tests and system tests. The latter is often quite rich as it also covers end-to-end type tests as well as non-functional tests. The defining quality of these formal tests are that they are automated, repeatable, determinant, structured, documented, unopinionated etc. and they test only their respective subject. These tests also serve as constraints for builds, branch merges, etc. Informal tests can also be included in this phase of development, the most common practice for that being staging. Therefore a system is covered by at least three layers of tests each spanning the entire system at least once, not counting the informal tests. My customers are often large businesses, but I have never seen any of them either deliver or buy untested software for doing so comes with legal repercussions and other risks. Us peasants, on the other hand...

Software Validation is the process of integrating software into its environment and making sure it answers customer requirements, its manifestation we call "acceptance tests." They are not formal; in fact, how they are carried out is only the customers business. They are also not automated, repeatable, determinant, structured, documented or unopininated (haha.) Therefore acceptance testing, which is what we call "beta phase" in Alpha/Beta testing is actually an approval stage. The "test" in the name comes from the assumption that the customer will have its own formal tests for accepting the product, which is exactly what businesses also do.

Therefore the difference between Alpha and Beta testing is bit more than, what was it? "Population"? Hhahaha... Don't you realise that if these definitions would allow you understand these terms enough to be able to make comparisons between them, that "glossary" would have to be a large encyclopedia? Like, how is it that I am the one telling you this and you cannot figure it out yourself?

Again, for the final time: Beta testing cannot go beyond its definition and cannot be considered formal testing because there are severe technical limitations for it, several of which I have written above. It is just an approval stage simply because it has literally nothing to do with the principles of Software Testing. Hope you and others get a better picture now.
 
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.
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.
I am not confusing it, you are! And that has been my whole point :smile: 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!
Hahahahhahaa.... (literally lolled though)
It works in adjusting consumer expectations. It works semantically.

Consumers will be calling out a product below their expectations completely regardless of how the early access, open alpha, open beta, however the frontend is named. It is based on the product and their expectations in whatever state it is. To gauge this, the user only roughly needs to consider the binary: finished or unfinished, not on whether the frontend is called early access, open alpha, open beta, or banana. There might be slight differences in acceptance within the terms, but beta is already under higher scrutiny of the public than pre-alpha or alpha.

This is the most efficient way for the end user to consider a product as well, because considering all the details that may have lead to the product being in whichever state it is are largely irrelevant for the user experience. Some users may take more into account, but in large industries the opportunity costs for doing so are immense, as opposed to just getting another product for the time being.

I also highly doubt you'd be seeing a whole lot of deviation from current cost-benefit analysis of a product if, for example, Taleworlds had slapped a massive "We're in acceptance testing, just checking how little we can deliver for it to not bite us in the ass legally" on their product. That's just a subjective feeling I have, based on the fact that it'd probably lower expectations even more. You only seem to have a problem nowadays when you say "it's finished" and something doesn't work.
No, it is the same as saying "there will always be snake oil salesmen" which is historically false :smile: Customers get smarter and fraud schemes get old.
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.

The term is widely accepted enough to mean whatever the industry puts forth, which is why using the term works for gaming companies and the public at large.

When all the people in the future have learned the exact ins and outs of engineering terminology their number one complaint with unsatisfying "beta testing" releases will, and I'm fairly certain of this, not be that it's advertised as an open beta, but whatever grievances they have with the content of the product. And the final layer of consumer judgement is then applied when, and if, it is supposedly finished, whether it's called "ultimate" edition or "definitive" edition or 1.0.
Swimming against the current but I already told you that is what I do by nature. Cant help that.
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.

The whole earlier discussion aside, you should really argue that there is no level of consumer interaction that should happen during production - period. And games should be considered complete experiences the second a user spends money on it. That's the only surefire way to avoid "fraud" in some fashion. This notion was far more widespread twelve years ago, when all of these online shenanigans started.

Although, since the whole of the gaming industry, you can even include boardgames in that, are making a consumer pay for whatever they're doing in the making of a game, and continueing development of titles under the public eye, this modus operandi is probably quite efficient. This seems to be the case both in terms of monetary value, and in terms of product quality. So maybe accepting a low percentage of what you'd consider fraud is good? At least it seems to work analogous to the banking industry, where loans are simply a very efficient tool for the market. But that assessment is quite subjective as well.
 
Out of words?

This is entertaining and I have not finished my coffee yet, please continue!
I editted the answer. Lots of reading there.
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.
Seriously, I wanted to respond but there is really nothing of substance here. Please read my previous post that I editted and that is my last on that topic. There are technical reasons why beta testing is not "testing" and you can find some of them there. Apart from that, I tried to say this kindly but what I talk about is none of your f*ing business. 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.
 
Last edited:
Apart from that, I tried to say this kindly but what I talk about is none of your f*ing business.
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 :mad:"
I don't care what you think beta testing is, neither does the industry of the forum you're raging on. Make a change.org petition for the industry to redefine what a beta test is for gaming to be more in line with your precious software engineering buddies.
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.
Pretty unproductive to spend your time here then.
 
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 :mad:"
I don't care what you think beta testing is, neither does the industry of the forum you're raging on. Make a change.org petition for the industry to redefine what a beta test is for gaming to be more in line with your precious software engineering buddies.

Pretty unproductive to spend your time here then.
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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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?
 
Top Bottom