Is there any chance a beta copy was published in lieu of a finished product?

[jlfarris]

Quote: Originally Posted by OMT

Well, that's not how it works. The last Beta build is what is published. There were like 15 beta builds this year I believe.

You mean the build that is certified? In my company, they make a build based on the tested (and passed) code, and call it the final build.

[RynoAid]

yea.. we go beta 1.x until the last build.. then it's called the "production build"

[OMT]

Lemme give a more detailed answer.

During Production, we implement new features. Once all new features are in the game, it is considered "Feature Complete" and we declare Alpha.

So now the builds are marked Alpha 1, Alpha 2 etc. At this point, the testers go in and find every bug they can. We probably send 2 builds a week to QA to start. When they get a new build, the first thing they do is verify that all the fixed bugs were actually fixed correctly.

This process is repeated for 6-8 weeks depending on the depth and scope of the new features. As we near the end of Alpha, we start delivering builds every other day for testing.

When there are zero bugs and QA says the game looks clean, we enter a Beta period. The first build is Beta 1. QA tests that for a day and finds more bugs to fix. Every day they get a new Beta build. Usually the first 5, while release candidates, are not realistically considered shipable. We know they will find some more bugs. When QA has a build that isn't crashing and they feel will pass certification, they lock down for like 12 hours of serious serious testing. If all goes well, we submit that Beta build for approval.

If it is approved by the Tiburon test team, the EA central test team, and Microsoft and Sony's test teams, it becomes Final and is sent for manufacturing.

So technically speaking, it is a beta build. But whether you call it alpha or beta or gamma or theta doesn't really mean anything.

[doctorhay53]

Quote: Originally Posted by OMT

Lemme give a more detailed answer. During Production, we implement new features. Once all new features are in the game, it is considered "Feature Complete" and we declare Alpha. So now the builds are marked Alpha 1, Alpha 2 etc. At this point, the testers go in and find every bug they can. We probably send 2 builds a week to QA to start. When they get a new build, the first thing they do is verify that all the fixed bugs were actually fixed correctly. This process is repeated for 6-8 weeks depending on the depth and scope of the new features. As we near the end of Alpha, we start delivering builds every other day for testing. When there are zero bugs and QA says the game looks clean, we enter a Beta period. The first build is Beta 1. QA tests that for a day and finds more bugs to fix. Every day they get a new Beta build. Usually the first 5, while release candidates, are not realistically considered shipable. We know they will find some more bugs. When QA has a build that isn't crashing and they feel will pass certification, they lock down for like 12 hours of serious serious testing. If all goes well, we submit that Beta build for approval. If it is approved by the Tiburon test team, the EA central test team, and Microsoft and Sony's test teams, it becomes Final and is sent for manufacturing. So technically speaking, it is a beta build. But whether you call it alpha or beta or gamma or theta doesn't really mean anything.

How do you guys do 'football' testing? In other words, things related specifically to how the game 'feels'? There are many gamers who feel like the game is not very well tested for football related issues, such as CPU hiking the ball so early, no deep passes, high completion percentage, etc. I know I myself feel that if I was given just 1 day with the game, I could make numerous suggestions that would greatly help the 'sim' gamers out there. It seems like with all the time that is required to find bugs, not enough time is spent getting the opinions of the true football gamers.

This is meant as a constructive criticism. It is very very important to find the bugs. But we consumers would be much more happy with a more realistic product, and we get frustrated because we feel like we should be able to get in on the testing process. The game would be much much better if a bunch of OS members I trust were able to test it and give you feedback.

Anyway, basic question: how does the 'football' testing process work?

[tarheelguy4736]

OMT ..... I have a question. How many people do you have test the game for you? And what do yall do when they finish testing the game? And how do you pick people to test the game for you? I was just wondering. Thanks for making yourself available on these boards because we know you really dont have to be answering our questions and commenting on our comments.

[o 99 PROBL3MS o]

Quote: Originally Posted by doctorhay53

How do you guys do 'football' testing? In other words, things related specifically to how the game 'feels'? There are many gamers who feel like the game is not very well tested for football related issues, such as CPU hiking the ball so early, no deep passes, high completion percentage, etc. I know I myself feel that if I was given just 1 day with the game, I could make numerous suggestions that would greatly help the 'sim' gamers out there. It seems like with all the time that is required to find bugs, not enough time is spent getting the opinions of the true football gamers. This is meant as a constructive criticism. It is very very important to find the bugs. But we consumers would be much more happy with a more realistic product, and we get frustrated because we feel like we should be able to get in on the testing process. The game would be much much better if a bunch of OS members I trust were able to test it and give you feedback. Anyway, basic question: how does the 'football' testing process work?

I know this is the question many people want to know the answer to. As far as game testers go, who do you guys target? Do you target just random gamers?? (seems if if this may be the case) Or do you guys go out and get some testers who are well verse in playing EA football games???

Better testers would definitely help with this games development process seeing that some of the gamers here and Fairdale King found the roster glitch in a matter of hours after getting the game.

[Phobia]

Quote: Originally Posted by doctorhay53

How do you guys do 'football' testing? In other words, things related specifically to how the game 'feels'? There are many gamers who feel like the game is not very well tested for football related issues, such as CPU hiking the ball so early, no deep passes, high completion percentage, etc. I know I myself feel that if I was given just 1 day with the game, I could make numerous suggestions that would greatly help the 'sim' gamers out there. It seems like with all the time that is required to find bugs, not enough time is spent getting the opinions of the true football gamers. This is meant as a constructive criticism. It is very very important to find the bugs. But we consumers would be much more happy with a more realistic product, and we get frustrated because we feel like we should be able to get in on the testing process. The game would be much much better if a bunch of OS members I trust were able to test it and give you feedback. Anyway, basic question: how does the 'football' testing process work?

Excellent post. I agree and think most of us would see glaring problems the first game we play.

1) First problem I noticed, alot of warping
2) Second problem, Lack of pass rush
3) High passing % for CPU QB's

[dubz]

Quote: Originally Posted by OMT

Well, that's not how it works. The last Beta build is what is published. There were like 15 beta builds this year I believe.

Where'd the instant replays go? I mean I get only 1 or 2 a game. In the demo I was getting them left and right. Not to be a "2Kguy", but in all 2K games you can set the replay occurance in the options menu....something to think about.