If someone's willing to use their game-time to test the game to make it better for the rest of the playerbase, then I'm happy for them to have that slight knowledge advantage.
Just wanted to slap in that if the public testing is some secret invite only club to a handful of people - I don't that counts anymore as being called public since very few people will have access.
Might as well just refer to it as the dev branch used only internally. I think this is quite different from a PTR.
I'd like to think most MMOs have a dev branch for testing.
It depends on what you mean by public.
Public testing does not need to always and only refer to testing that is open to all. It is appropriate to label any testing by people not employed by the developer or publisher (or a paid contractor) as being public testing, even if it is invite only.
I can't think of a single service that is invite only and referred to as public. Invite only implies it is private.
Please could you share an example of one if possible?
Sure, MMO testing.
Other than that, I have opened a number of businesses, and have often held public openings that are invite only on the first day. Same thing with some museums, galleries and library openings that I have been involved with - the first day is often invite only with VIP's, dignitaries, donors and press. Additionally, many public events like concerts have invite only aspects to them - even if only a specifically designated area, or an initial showing of a performance.
This is a much better analogy to what MMO's do than simply isolating the invite only stage of the public test. The public testing starts out as invite only, and then opens up to where (often) anyone that wants to join in can.
It is called "public testing" because from the perspective of the developers, members of the public are testing it - even if it is invite only.
Other than that, I have opened a number of businesses, and have often held public openings that are invite only on the first day. Same thing with some museums, galleries and library openings that I have been involved with - the first day is often invite only with VIP's, dignitaries, donors and press. Additionally, many public events like concerts have invite only aspects to them - even if only a specifically designated area, or an initial showing of a performance.
This is a much better analogy to what MMO's do than simply isolating the invite only stage of the public test. The public testing starts out as invite only, and then opens up to where (often) anyone that wants to join in can.
It is called "public testing" because from the perspective of the developers, members of the public are testing it - even if it is invite only.
This is not rocket surgery.
This is still not reflective of the term public.
In your own example, the first day is a private event for invited members only. The public do not yet have access.
Many public events like concerts have invite only aspects to them.
Are these areas you are referring to feature a sign which says "Members Only" / "Invite Only" / "Private Area" ? How do the public know they don't have access to this invite only aspect?
The public testing starts out as invite only, and then opens up to where (often) anyone that wants to join in can.
You are describing 2 different stages of testing. I believe this thread is only looking at the public part. Which is, I agree often open to anyone that signs up.
So, the adjective version here has 14 different meanings.
You are assuming only one meaning is appropriate - 6a in your link.
If you assume the definition contained in 3a - "of or relating to people in general" - then you get a better picture.
Basically, you are assuming a term has a single meaning, and provided a link where half of that term contained 14 different meanings as proof of your point.
Yes, relating to people in general is not inviting only a subset group of said people.
Edit: For clarity, here is the definition of private.
- intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class
- not general in effect
For example, just because a president is meeting with members of the public doesn't change the fact it's a private meeting. These people were selected or invited.
Dev Testing / Private Testing / Closed Testing which can be based on invitation which I believe you are referring to are entirely different from a Public Test.
But I concede - I don't think this is a point we will be able to agree on.
Yes, relating to people in general is not inviting only a subset group of said people.
Yes it is.
I mean, it isn't as if literally every person alive tests the game anyway, so we are literally always only talking about a subset.
Once again, when you are working within an organization developing a product, any time that product is shown to people not within that organization, it is a public showing. Even if it is an invite only event, it is still people that are not within that organization, and thus is a showing to the public.
I mean, it isn't as if literally every person alive tests the game anyway, so we are literally always only talking about a subset.
This is a false equivalence.
A museum is open to public; any one can visit. This does not mean everyone alive has to visit.
If the public test environment is open to public, this just means it should be open to apply for access. It does not mean everyone alive has to sign up.
Once again, when you are working within an organization developing a product, any time that product is shown to people not within that organization, it is a public showing. Even if it is an invite only event, it is still people that are not within that organization, and thus is a showing to the public.
This is the example I had written in my previous post. Inviting members of the public to showcase information is a private event.
For a better example, please refer to the SEC's laws regarding Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading. Providing information to invited members of the public is considered a private meeting.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Seems very likely that all active players would be eligible to apply to test on the Test Realm Server(s).
If the public test environment is open to public, this just means it should be open to apply for access. It does not mean everyone alive has to sign up.
As I have said, it is.
Generally, you don't even need to apply, you just log in to that server.
However, this usually happens as the second stage of the public test - the first stage of which is generally invite only. However, the initial stages of testing being invite only does not mean they can't refer to all testing open to anyone outside of the organization as being public testing.
This is the example I had written in my previous post. Inviting members of the public to showcase information is a private event.
See what you wrote here?
Inviting members of the PUBLIC. If members of the public are present for a test, calling it a public test is a valid term, even at a semantic level. You are literally trying to claim that testing that is done by members of the public can not be called public testing, simply because it is not open to anyone that wants to join in - despite the fact that it is indeed testing being done by the public.
Testing an MMO (or any piece of software, really) isn't subject to the SEC's regulations, and thus their definitions are meaningless here. I don't know why you even bothered.
Seems very likely that all active players would be eligible to apply to test on the Test Realm Server(s).
The only part of this that I personally doubt is the need to apply.
I have no doubt that anyone will be able to test out DLC for the game on a public test server. I also have no doubt that there will be an invite only public test before the server is opened up to all comers.
It looks like you're taking this conflict personally. I'm just saying if it's called a Public Test - the connotations are different from a Closed/Private Test which I think you're referring to.
Inviting members of the PUBLIC. If members of the public are present for a test, calling it a public test is a valid term, even at a semantic level. You are literally trying to claim that testing that is done by members of the public can not be called public testing, simply because it is not open to anyone that wants to join in - despite the fact that it is indeed testing being done by the public.
Yes, that is indeed my claim.
If you have hand picked and selected a subset of people to an event - it is not open to public. This is a closed test. As an example, please refer to Google's testing structure for iOS apps.
Testing an MMO (or any piece of software, really) isn't subject to the SEC's regulations, and thus their definitions are meaningless here. I don't know why you even bothered
Sorry if this seemed out of place. I thought it had some relevance since they go into detail regarding the differences between public, private, press and internal.
It looks like you're taking this conflict personally. I'm just saying if it's called a Public Test - the connotations are different from a Closed/Private Test which I think you're referring to.
Closed tests are usually only available to employees.
If you have hand picked and selected a subset of people to an event - it is not open to public.
Where did I say it was open to the public?
A public test is a test by members of the public. It doesn't have to be open to all members of the public, just some. If it is a test by members of the public, it is, by definition, a public test.
You are looking at the statement public test as being 'public test' - where you are assuming that the test itself is public, rather than where the test itself is carried out by members of the public.
A public test is a test by members of the public. It doesn't have to be open to all members of the public, just some. If it is a test by members of the public, it is, by definition, a public test.
You are looking at the statement public test as being 'public test' - where you are assuming that the test itself is public, rather than where the test itself is carried out by members of the public.
I think you are correct here. Public is a poor choice of word and can be stretched to include the entire world which isn't representative.
Perhaps a better term since this is a paid game would be customer.
Once someone is given exclusive privilege or access they are no longer just a customer. They are a VIP which gives them access to benefits ordinary customers don't have access to.
They might be invited to have access to closed tests, which are exclusively only for other VIPs.
If there was another test realm, such as a customer test realm - this might give access to all customers instead of just a subset of VIPs.
If there was another test realm, such as a customer test realm - this might give access to all customers instead of just a subset of VIPs.
If we were talking about two different servers, then things would perhaps be different.
But we aren't.
The way it works in almost all games I have played is that a test server opens up, and is only accessible via invitation. This usually lasts a period of time - somewhere between a week and a month (more than two weeks is rare). Then that server is opened up to more and more people. Sometimes via invite, or via application, but sometimes just open to anyone that wants to come along.
It's all the same test, the same server. They just want to control the numbers at the start of that test, and so limit who can participate. However, since that test is all carried out by members of the public, and since it is all just one test, calling it a public test is the only name that fits.
If someone is saying test that are not public, are public test servers they are misleading you.
I'll use quotes to illustrate things for you.
You are looking at public test as if it were "public test'. A test that is public, and thus open to all.
You should be looking at is as 'public' ' test'. A test that is carried out by some members of the public, as opposed to members of an organization (Intrepid, in this case).
That isn't to say that a test server shouldn't at some stage be open to anyone wanting to test - it absolutely should. All I am saying is that the meaning of a public test does not inherently require it to be open to all that wish to test - and indeed most games have an aspect of their testing that falls under the public testing stage be invite only.
The argument of: "Ah you're just not good enough to be invited to the secret PTRs that everyone has" might be the single worst argument you've made in the entirety of the forums' existence.
Who said anything about not being good enough?
Are you making the assumption that because a lot of top end players tend to spend some time on test servers in some games, that top end players make good testers?
As a general rule, the value of someone in a testing environment has no relation at all to how good they are at anything in that game. Being a good tester is a mindset thing, it's about how you look at things.
If you are an analytical person, you are probably going to be a good tester. If you make assumptions based on how you "feel", you are not going to be a good tester.
Fun fact, most games with public testing also have earlier alpha testing on expansions. The earlier testing is where most of the actual bugs are found, and the later beta tests are more for load testing - both server technology, but also how well the content itself handles loads.
I've yet to be involved in a game that has not had invite only testing - including Ashes.
I like the idea of public test servers. I don't think they detract from gameplay. As long as they are open to all, then any person worried about "not being first" can log on and help test the new content.
One caveat about public test servers, which also applies to alphas and betas, is people finding bugs and concealing them.
This happens quite often in MMO development. Large guilds or gold sellers will find dupe bugs or other unintended ways to make fast cash and hide them as long as possible.
I don't know how to discourage this behavior, but I think making a "bounty" system for reporting bugs might help. Maybe offer players a reward of some type for finding and reporting bugs?
The way it works in almost all games I have played is that a test server opens up, and is only accessible via invitation. This usually lasts a period of time - somewhere between a week and a month (more than two weeks is rare). Then that server is opened up to more and more people. Sometimes via invite, or via application, but sometimes just open to anyone that wants to come along.
It's all the same test, the same server. They just want to control the numbers at the start of that test, and so limit who can participate. However, since that test is all carried out by members of the public, and since it is all just one test, calling it a public test is the only name that fits.
You've just described different stages of testing that I linked earlier in Google's example of closed (private / invite only) to open (public / anyone can sign up).
In the context of this thread, are we in agreement that public test realm should be open to everyone and not invite as previously suggested?
Public testing does not need to always and only refer to testing that is open to all. It is appropriate to label any testing by people not employed by the developer or publisher (or a paid contractor) as being public testing, even if it is invite only.
If someone is saying test that are not public, are public test servers they are misleading you.
I'll use quotes to illustrate things for you.
You are looking at public test as if it were "public test'. A test that is public, and thus open to all.
You should be looking at is as 'public' ' test'. A test that is carried out by some members of the public, as opposed to members of an organization (Intrepid, in this case).
That isn't to say that a test server shouldn't at some stage be open to anyone wanting to test - it absolutely should. All I am saying is that the meaning of a public test does not inherently require it to be open to all that wish to test - and indeed most games have an aspect of their testing that falls under the public testing stage be invite only.
You are describing closed testing where they pick certain people from the public based on certain reasons and do test.
Even alpha I wouldn't view that as public testing but at least it is closer since people can watch and comment on it. Though the price point isn't really a public price point and there to most likely prevent a large influx of people as they won't have servers for that.
Beta you can much better say that is public with a much more fair cost.
Public can help in all forms of test though generally closed and public testing.
In the context of this thread, are we in agreement that public test realm should be open to everyone and not invite as previously suggested?
Yes.
If testing is going to be available to any player at all, then it should be available to all players. The thing is, just not necessarily for that tests entire duration.
I only say this because that is what works for basically every other game, and there is no reason at all to change this.
Maybe this is a misunderstanding.
I have been saying that you are misunderstanding for a while now.
If someone is saying test that are not public, are public test servers they are misleading you.
I'll use quotes to illustrate things for you.
You are looking at public test as if it were "public test'. A test that is public, and thus open to all.
You should be looking at is as 'public' ' test'. A test that is carried out by some members of the public, as opposed to members of an organization (Intrepid, in this case).
That isn't to say that a test server shouldn't at some stage be open to anyone wanting to test - it absolutely should. All I am saying is that the meaning of a public test does not inherently require it to be open to all that wish to test - and indeed most games have an aspect of their testing that falls under the public testing stage be invite only.
You are describing closed testing where they pick certain people from the public based on certain reasons and do test.
Even alpha I wouldn't view that as public testing but at least it is closer since people can watch and comment on it. Though the price point isn't really a public price point and there to most likely prevent a large influx of people as they won't have servers for that.
Beta you can much better say that is public with a much more fair cost.
Public can help in all forms of test though generally closed and public testing.
You can put what ever label on each testing phase you want. I really don't care.
What I am saying is that in my experience, the phase of testing that developers/publishers refer to as public testing encompasses all testing by people that are not employees or contractors to said developer or publisher.
This includes aspects of testing where members of the public are invited, it includes testing where members of the public need to apply, and it includes testing where members of the public are free to just come along.
All of this fits under the umbrella of public testing, because it is all testing done by the public.
The testing you are referring to, where the public is free to just come along and test, is generally referred to as open testing, or open public testing - key word being open, not public.
If someone is saying test that are not public, are public test servers they are misleading you.
I'll use quotes to illustrate things for you.
You are looking at public test as if it were "public test'. A test that is public, and thus open to all.
You should be looking at is as 'public' ' test'. A test that is carried out by some members of the public, as opposed to members of an organization (Intrepid, in this case).
That isn't to say that a test server shouldn't at some stage be open to anyone wanting to test - it absolutely should. All I am saying is that the meaning of a public test does not inherently require it to be open to all that wish to test - and indeed most games have an aspect of their testing that falls under the public testing stage be invite only.
You are describing closed testing where they pick certain people from the public based on certain reasons and do test.
Even alpha I wouldn't view that as public testing but at least it is closer since people can watch and comment on it. Though the price point isn't really a public price point and there to most likely prevent a large influx of people as they won't have servers for that.
Beta you can much better say that is public with a much more fair cost.
Public can help in all forms of test though generally closed and public testing.
You can put what ever label on each testing phase you want. I really don't care.
What I am saying is that in my experience, the phase of testing that developers/publishers refer to as public testing encompasses all testing by people that are not employees or contractors to said developer or publisher.
This includes aspects of testing where members of the public are invited, it includes testing where members of the public need to apply, and it includes testing where members of the public are free to just come along.
All of this fits under the umbrella of public testing, because it is all testing done by the public.
The testing you are referring to, where the public is free to just come along and test, is generally referred to as open testing, or open public testing - key word being open, not public.
If you don't care of the meaning or differences between closed testing and public testing and want to use your own terms not much else to say. Though it is there for people that do want to understand or why people don't agree with what you are saying.
If you don't care of the meaning or differences between closed testing and public testing and want to use your own terms not much else to say. Though it is there for people that do want to understand or why people don't agree with what you are saying.
The opposite of closed testing is not public testing - it is open testing.
It is not my fault that a few of you seem to have mixed up the terms open testing and public testing.
Comments
It depends on what you mean by public.
Public testing does not need to always and only refer to testing that is open to all. It is appropriate to label any testing by people not employed by the developer or publisher (or a paid contractor) as being public testing, even if it is invite only.
I can't think of a single service that is invite only and referred to as public. Invite only implies it is private.
Please could you share an example of one if possible?
Other than that, I have opened a number of businesses, and have often held public openings that are invite only on the first day. Same thing with some museums, galleries and library openings that I have been involved with - the first day is often invite only with VIP's, dignitaries, donors and press. Additionally, many public events like concerts have invite only aspects to them - even if only a specifically designated area, or an initial showing of a performance.
This is a much better analogy to what MMO's do than simply isolating the invite only stage of the public test. The public testing starts out as invite only, and then opens up to where (often) anyone that wants to join in can.
It is called "public testing" because from the perspective of the developers, members of the public are testing it - even if it is invite only.
This is not rocket surgery.
This is still not reflective of the term public.
In your own example, the first day is a private event for invited members only. The public do not yet have access.
Are these areas you are referring to feature a sign which says "Members Only" / "Invite Only" / "Private Area" ? How do the public know they don't have access to this invite only aspect?
You are describing 2 different stages of testing. I believe this thread is only looking at the public part. Which is, I agree often open to anyone that signs up.
I agree, this is not rocket surgery. Public has a clearly defined meaning.
So, the adjective version here has 14 different meanings.
You are assuming only one meaning is appropriate - 6a in your link.
If you assume the definition contained in 3a - "of or relating to people in general" - then you get a better picture.
Basically, you are assuming a term has a single meaning, and provided a link where half of that term contained 14 different meanings as proof of your point.
Good work!
Edit: For clarity, here is the definition of private.
- intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class
- not general in effect
For example, just because a president is meeting with members of the public doesn't change the fact it's a private meeting. These people were selected or invited.
Dev Testing / Private Testing / Closed Testing which can be based on invitation which I believe you are referring to are entirely different from a Public Test.
But I concede - I don't think this is a point we will be able to agree on.
I mean, it isn't as if literally every person alive tests the game anyway, so we are literally always only talking about a subset.
Once again, when you are working within an organization developing a product, any time that product is shown to people not within that organization, it is a public showing. Even if it is an invite only event, it is still people that are not within that organization, and thus is a showing to the public.
This is a false equivalence.
A museum is open to public; any one can visit. This does not mean everyone alive has to visit.
If the public test environment is open to public, this just means it should be open to apply for access. It does not mean everyone alive has to sign up.
This is the example I had written in my previous post. Inviting members of the public to showcase information is a private event.
For a better example, please refer to the SEC's laws regarding Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading. Providing information to invited members of the public is considered a private meeting.
Generally, you don't even need to apply, you just log in to that server.
However, this usually happens as the second stage of the public test - the first stage of which is generally invite only. However, the initial stages of testing being invite only does not mean they can't refer to all testing open to anyone outside of the organization as being public testing.
See what you wrote here?
Inviting members of the PUBLIC. If members of the public are present for a test, calling it a public test is a valid term, even at a semantic level. You are literally trying to claim that testing that is done by members of the public can not be called public testing, simply because it is not open to anyone that wants to join in - despite the fact that it is indeed testing being done by the public.
Testing an MMO (or any piece of software, really) isn't subject to the SEC's regulations, and thus their definitions are meaningless here. I don't know why you even bothered.
The only part of this that I personally doubt is the need to apply.
I have no doubt that anyone will be able to test out DLC for the game on a public test server. I also have no doubt that there will be an invite only public test before the server is opened up to all comers.
It looks like you're taking this conflict personally. I'm just saying if it's called a Public Test - the connotations are different from a Closed/Private Test which I think you're referring to.
Yes, that is indeed my claim.
If you have hand picked and selected a subset of people to an event - it is not open to public. This is a closed test. As an example, please refer to Google's testing structure for iOS apps.
Sorry if this seemed out of place. I thought it had some relevance since they go into detail regarding the differences between public, private, press and internal.
Closed tests are usually only available to employees.
Where did I say it was open to the public?
A public test is a test by members of the public. It doesn't have to be open to all members of the public, just some. If it is a test by members of the public, it is, by definition, a public test.
You are looking at the statement public test as being 'public test' - where you are assuming that the test itself is public, rather than where the test itself is carried out by members of the public.
I believe this would called internal QA or just the dev platform if it's employees only.
I think you are correct here. Public is a poor choice of word and can be stretched to include the entire world which isn't representative.
Perhaps a better term since this is a paid game would be customer.
Once someone is given exclusive privilege or access they are no longer just a customer. They are a VIP which gives them access to benefits ordinary customers don't have access to.
They might be invited to have access to closed tests, which are exclusively only for other VIPs.
If there was another test realm, such as a customer test realm - this might give access to all customers instead of just a subset of VIPs.
Done and dusted! Thanks to both of you!
But we aren't.
The way it works in almost all games I have played is that a test server opens up, and is only accessible via invitation. This usually lasts a period of time - somewhere between a week and a month (more than two weeks is rare). Then that server is opened up to more and more people. Sometimes via invite, or via application, but sometimes just open to anyone that wants to come along.
It's all the same test, the same server. They just want to control the numbers at the start of that test, and so limit who can participate. However, since that test is all carried out by members of the public, and since it is all just one test, calling it a public test is the only name that fits.
Nah, public test is perfectly appropriate to any test for Ashes that is carried out by anyone not working at Intrepid.
The problem is some people thinking words only have one meaning.
Let's call it Tank Testing. That name has to be used for something right?
I'll use quotes to illustrate things for you.
You are looking at public test as if it were "public test'. A test that is public, and thus open to all.
You should be looking at is as 'public' ' test'. A test that is carried out by some members of the public, as opposed to members of an organization (Intrepid, in this case).
That isn't to say that a test server shouldn't at some stage be open to anyone wanting to test - it absolutely should. All I am saying is that the meaning of a public test does not inherently require it to be open to all that wish to test - and indeed most games have an aspect of their testing that falls under the public testing stage be invite only.
I like the idea of public test servers. I don't think they detract from gameplay. As long as they are open to all, then any person worried about "not being first" can log on and help test the new content.
One caveat about public test servers, which also applies to alphas and betas, is people finding bugs and concealing them.
This happens quite often in MMO development. Large guilds or gold sellers will find dupe bugs or other unintended ways to make fast cash and hide them as long as possible.
I don't know how to discourage this behavior, but I think making a "bounty" system for reporting bugs might help. Maybe offer players a reward of some type for finding and reporting bugs?
You've just described different stages of testing that I linked earlier in Google's example of closed (private / invite only) to open (public / anyone can sign up).
In the context of this thread, are we in agreement that public test realm should be open to everyone and not invite as previously suggested?
Maybe this is a misunderstanding.
You are describing closed testing where they pick certain people from the public based on certain reasons and do test.
Even alpha I wouldn't view that as public testing but at least it is closer since people can watch and comment on it. Though the price point isn't really a public price point and there to most likely prevent a large influx of people as they won't have servers for that.
Beta you can much better say that is public with a much more fair cost.
Public can help in all forms of test though generally closed and public testing.
If testing is going to be available to any player at all, then it should be available to all players. The thing is, just not necessarily for that tests entire duration.
I only say this because that is what works for basically every other game, and there is no reason at all to change this.
I have been saying that you are misunderstanding for a while now.
You can put what ever label on each testing phase you want. I really don't care.
What I am saying is that in my experience, the phase of testing that developers/publishers refer to as public testing encompasses all testing by people that are not employees or contractors to said developer or publisher.
This includes aspects of testing where members of the public are invited, it includes testing where members of the public need to apply, and it includes testing where members of the public are free to just come along.
All of this fits under the umbrella of public testing, because it is all testing done by the public.
The testing you are referring to, where the public is free to just come along and test, is generally referred to as open testing, or open public testing - key word being open, not public.
If you don't care of the meaning or differences between closed testing and public testing and want to use your own terms not much else to say. Though it is there for people that do want to understand or why people don't agree with what you are saying.
The opposite of closed testing is not public testing - it is open testing.
It is not my fault that a few of you seem to have mixed up the terms open testing and public testing.