I mean yeah the game isn't perfect. Guns need more recoil, the HUD can be pretty confusing and flying feels weird, but overall I'm having a sh*t ton of fun, yet this sub seems to be having a stroke because the game isn't a carbon copy of BF4. I also agree the game is in a pretty rough state with all the bugs and bad performance but I'd say the base we have is solid and really good.
External link →Definitely has its issues, not sure how old this build is but can see it being a solid title with more polishing
A couple of months old. Fair to say a significant amount of fixes, tweaks and improvements have gone into it since then.
I hate to be annoying F8RGE but is there a particular reason why the beta is months old? Wouldn’t it be better to give out a more updated build so that people can more accurately judge your game and not give bug reports on bugs you’ve already fixed?
This is a super simplistic version, and doesn't do justice to the work involved.
It's the nature of software development. We work in branches, so while we have our launch day branch any spin-offs (betas, demo, E3, gamescom etc) all get created from it.
The beta was taken a few months ago from our main build, and from there you then go into hardening mode. This is where you focus on bugs, stability and no further work should get checked in. With each check-in, comes the risk of new issues coming up (as is the case with Software Development). We're making so many changes to the build so you have to make a call between locking the build or stopping active development.
We don't want to stop development of our launch build, so you have to 'cap' the branched build (in this case the beta) at a specific time.
This won't be unique to us, this is how the industry will operate as a whole.
The same thing will happen to release builds the closer a studio gets to launch, it gets locked down and then the hardening process can begin.
Worth noting as well that with dates changing, it just makes the build older etc
I remember your work on Battlefront 2 subreddit, I'm glad you're here!
Hello there
This is a super simplistic version, and doesn't do justice to the work involved.
It's the nature of software development. We work in branches, so while we have our launch day branch any spin-offs (betas, demo, E3, gamescom etc) all get created from it.
The beta was taken a few months ago from our main build, and from there you then go into hardening mode. This is where you focus on bugs, stability and no further work should get checked in. With each check-in, comes the risk of new issues coming up (as is the case with Software Development). We're making so many changes to the build so you have to make a call between locking the build or stopping active development.
We don't want to stop development of our launch build, so you have to 'cap' the branched build (in this case the beta) at a specific time.
This won't be unique to us, this is how the industry will operate as a whole.
The same thing will happen to release builds the closer a studio gets to launch, it gets locked down and then the hardening process can begin.
Worth noting as well that with dates changing, it just makes the build older etc
It's the only way to deal with a project that is worked on by tons of people (mostly working from home) spread across all continents. some things might seem to be an easy fix for "missing feature X" or "minor bug Y" but doing so could unknowingly create 10 more bugs that wont be found until someone stumbles across it after testing for a week or two.
Theres a lot of systems in place to catch the big bugs and errors early on but theres always this domino/butterfly effect of a change to the data/code leading to unforeseen consequences.
Even with the best intent, there's a big risk some game changing fix or addon will end up breaking a much more important element in a different part of the game that seems to be unrelated to the change.
As the saying goes
devtrackers.gg