What is "Beta"?

[Foxster]

I've worked in business software development for a long time and there are some development milestones that have approximate de facto definitions. My own words:

Alpha: Not all the functionality and lots of bugs

Beta: All the functionality and lots of bugs

Production/release: All the functionality and a few trivial bugs

Now, those are business-world stages, they get muddier for gaming. Even in the business world, the stage titles are flexible depending on a lot of things, like marketing dept deadlines (I'm looking at you Oracle). I'm almost certain that Squad will have faced pressures other than just getting the best product out of the door and I have a lot of sympathy for this.

And, of course, there are other development lifecycle methods than the simple waterfall three tier model. There aren't any 'rules' for naming your release stages, it's just handy to use the labels so others know where things are at. However, they are often useful stages to go through for any kind of software development, if only as milestones to be shared with the interested community. Having these stages also helps to focus where the development effort is being applied.

So, how does the release of KSP fit this model, because there's been a lot talk about Alpha v Beta v Production?

Well, we had a long Alpha stage, perhaps everything before 0.9. There was a lot of bugs that slowly got squished and a lot of missing or placeholder functionality.

Then we had the short stage of 0.9 which was declared as Beta. Bit of an oddity this. There was additional functionality but not all of it, with some very major changes (aero etc) still to come but not too many bugs.

Finally we got 1.0. This has all the major functionality originally in scope with some bugs and major tweaking needed.

We therefore got a typically top-light development. A very long Alpha, then a truncated and seemingly rushed Beta and Production. It got the product out of the door in a useable state and as Jeb might say, "Any landing you walk away from is a good one". So all well and good.

If I was to suggest how in an ideal world things might have been improved, I would have extended Beta with at least one more release, 0.95. I'd have put all final functionality in that and then tweaked and bug-fixed it. Then released 1.0 a few weeks after that when the issues with the final functionality were ironed out. Because, as it is, the customers are testing and bug-finding the final release, which unfortunately is not uncommon in the business world either (I'm looking really hard at you now Oracle).

Edited May 4, 2015 by Foxster

[gogozerg]

I'm almost certain that Squad will have faced pressures other than just getting the best product out of the door and I have a lot of sympathy for this.

That's what I think too, and there are things we don't know.

For me, 1.0 is the real beta. Many bugs need to be fixed, Squad will probably fine tune some parameters. Angry people should come back for 1.1.

KSP is not the first game shipped too early...

[Kerbart]

I think we all (at least those with experience in delivering software) agree on that. It's also clear that the product was rushed, the QA team itself mentioned that.

Then there is this deal with GOG about the special edition boxed set. Boxed sets require production runs and those are usually tightly scheduled, so maybe that had something to do with it?

I don't think anyone reasonable had a particular gripe with the sorry state 1.0 was delivered in; a lot of exciting new features were added and it takes some time to sort them out. As you mentioned, in a .9x release. What is upsetting was the decision to go live with this particular release, which pretty much unfolded exactly the way you would expect it to unfold. The new features contained bugs and are unbalanced. Nothing a few weeks of community feedback and bugfixes can't handle. Of course by then we're talking about 1.1

The old rule of "never buy a 1.0 version; wait for others to discover the bugs first" still seems to apply, although I'm happy to have been playing from .20 onward, but with each release it seems a better and better idea to wait a week before upgrading. But who's that patient?

[whiterafter]

Well, its not gonna happen so you might as well enjoy the 80% of things that did go right with 1.0

[Nereid]

Alpha: Not all the functionality and lots of bugs

Beta: All the functionality and lots of bugs

Production/release: All the functionality and a few trivial bugs

.

I won't agree.

Beta = essential functionality, usable for testing and lots of bugs. Some functionality may be broken, some just not existing.

And sometimes there are two more stages: gamma releases and release candidates.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Nereid

[Red Iron Crown]

The alpha/beta terms don't really apply to early access software, IMO. The only really important term is switching from early access to official release, as that affects how Steam markets the game. Whether KSP was ready for that change is a matter of opinion, either way it's still a great game (I've bought games that were "released" in a much worse state than KSP, both in bugs and features).

[ColourOfFire]

I think the whole process is being changed due to the ease of updating an application. Not too long ago it was just plain arrogant to assume your customers to have constant internet access, and patches were not as frequent, hotfixes only released when functionality was at stake. Now it's very easy to adapt to consumer input and release patches quite quickly. I think the positive of this is that there's more consumer input and a quicker reaction to this input, but the downside is that you get sloppier releases under the motto 'we can patch it if turns out to be broken'. Include publisher pressure (not an issue with Squad, but it is for a lot of other developers) and you get buggy releases and hasty patches.

I notice this even in my own work, I build interactive installations and when I have the time to work and test on location before the opening I tend to make code that just works and figure out the details on site. If I can't be present, there's no on site time to test or the hardware is made by an external party I am way more minute in ruling out any potential problems in the code as it's not as easy and quick to fix it.

Edited May 4, 2015 by ColourOfFire

[fairytalefox]

It's not alpha-beta-production. It's Minecraft style. SQUAD just need to clearly separate "snapshots" and "releases" (whatever they would call them).

[John FX]

A rose by any other name etc

As long as development continues at the same rate it does not matter what it is called. If moving to 1.0 changed that I am vehemently opposed to it.

[klgraham1013]

The alpha/beta terms don't really apply to early access software, IMO. The only really important term is switching from early access to official release, as that affects how Steam markets the game. Whether KSP was ready for that change is a matter of opinion, either way it's still a great game (I've bought games that were "released" in a much worse state than KSP, both in bugs and features).

I disagree. If we follow the definitions in the OP, you can clearly see a similar path with KSP. I'd even say, if we follow that traditional path, Beta would be starting with the 1.0 release. All features are in. Now it's on to balance and bug fixing.

[Red Iron Crown]

I disagree. If we follow the definitions in the OP, you can clearly see a similar path with KSP. I'd even say, if we follow that traditional path, Beta would be starting with the 1.0 release. All features are in. Now it's on to balance and bug fixing.

I would say that not all planned features are in. Multiplayer is still planned afaik, and there's no sign of it in game yet.

My point really was that early access is so different from traditional closed development that the terms are pretty blurry. For example, if KSP was developed using the closed model there likely would have been only one part of each type while the mechanics were implemented, makes testing and balancing much easier. But an early access game must be playable, so we got a wide spectrum of parts early on and expanded it with every release.

[klgraham1013]

I would say that not all planned features are in. Multiplayer is still planned afaik, and there's no sign of it in game yet.

My point really was that early access is so different from traditional closed development that the terms are pretty blurry. For example, if KSP was developed using the closed model there likely would have been only one part of each type while the mechanics were implemented, makes testing and balancing much easier. But an early access game must be playable, so we got a wide spectrum of parts early on and expanded it with every release.

Ah, yes. I forgot about multiplayer.

Also, I see your point.

[EtherDragon]

The alpha/beta terms don't really apply to early access software, IMO. The only really important term is switching from early access to official release, as that affects how Steam markets the game. Whether KSP was ready for that change is a matter of opinion, either way it's still a great game (I've bought games that were "released" in a much worse state than KSP, both in bugs and features).

Oh you must have played any one of the recent Battlefield games. =p

[Wesreidau]

Major changes post-release aren't unheard of, but something as large as the aero model being completely overhauled should have gone to .95. One thing I miss from the pre-broadband days was games never requiring a patch. Open the box, put in seventeen floppy disks in the precise numerical sequence, and boot up. Zero bugs might be impossible in complex modern programs, but things like fireproof parachutes and overheating should have been addressed before release.

[Red Iron Crown]

Major changes post-release aren't unheard of, but something as large as the aero model being completely overhauled should have gone to .95. One thing I miss from the pre-broadband days was games never requiring a patch. Open the box, put in seventeen floppy disks in the precise numerical sequence, and boot up. Zero bugs might be impossible in complex modern programs, but things like fireproof parachutes and overheating should have been addressed before release.

It was a tradeoff, you were also stuck with whatever bugs were there forever.

[Foxster]

It was a tradeoff, you were also stuck with whatever bugs were there forever.

Ah, but then there were the computer mags with a cover disk containing patches for various games

[sal_vager]

I remember waiting each month for a PC gaming magazine, in the hope that the cover disk (3 1/4 floppies, then CD's) would have the patch I needed.

Or I'd have to write to the publisher, send them a floppy disk and they'd send me the patch.

You tended to be more accepting of bugs back then.

[Wesreidau]

The bugs were bugs though, little mistakes you rarely noticed or could work around. It was rarely things so broad as this.

[sal_vager]

Nope they could be pretty broad, when UFO: Enemy Unknown first came out it wasn't playable due to a bug, and have you looked at the Support forum? People spot even the tiniest things that aren't even bugs in KSP.

At least KSP is working, the default values aren't suiting everyone but that's all they are, defaults that can be changed, that's not even a bug.

[Wesreidau]

Fine fine, I'm just being nostalgic.

[Adester]

as someone mentioned erlier: alpha and beta doesn't apply to ksp.

alpha: only devs and paid tester have access the software

beta: a fix group of selected testers have access the software for free or at low price.

you just can't use this definition on early access games. the same for the phrase 1.0.

there are some things that come with early access games from indy devs:

- the devs get money to live while developing

- the amount of needed paid tester is reduced (perhaps even to 0)

- in some cases the devs will develop a strong need to deliver a good product, because there are people that accept the first two points and believe in the devs

ksp and minecraft are two positive examples of this concept, but there are negative ones, too.

What i think "1.0" means is, that the devs think or want to say: a status quo is about to reach. not today, but i dont belive that there are 4 more years of developing.

[peachoftree]

One thing to keep in mind is that in business, you have a finished product where you (mostly) stop developing. In KSP's case, squad has been pretty open about their plans for continuing development, and that means at least some new features for every release, and along with that some new bugs. That's why KSP does not really follow a traditional release cycle