Console Players Should Have Access to the PTB

BigBadPiggy

I think it's unfair that majority of feedback from the PTB comes from pc, who are the ones who actually get to test out the new mechanics and characters. People who play the game on console will never get to test out the new content unless they go out and just buy it AGAIN on pc, or just watch others play it on YouTube. The devs need to try and come up with a solution for this so that console players can finally chime in and give their feedback.

My fix for this is to have another option on the main menu titled "Public Test Build" (Duh). Making it an option on the main menu can also give pc users faster access to it, so they won't have to constantly go through the properties to get to the betas tab just to play it. After the player selects the Player Test Build option in the menu it will load up like normal except it will have the properties of KYF (Kill your friends) but with regular matchmaking like normal. You will have access to all items, addons, perks, killers, and survivors. You will not gain bloodpoints, iridescent shards, levels, or rank, the same way as if you were playing kill your friends. Turning the PTB into an option on the main menu for both console and pc would be a great move by the devs because they would be making access to the PTB faster, easier, as well as giving access to the rest of the community.

Sadly, I believe this will never happen. Pc will always get to test the new s#!t while the rest of us are constantly being thrown under the bus.

unknown

This content has been removed.

FinLadd

thesuicidefox said:

@FinLadd said:
Uberfish said:

https://kotaku.com/5884842/wait-it-costs-40000-to-patch-a-console-game

Here's ya problem...

(Summary: It costs a fortune to push out a console patch)

This can't be for real otherwise all game companys would be broke in no time. 

This article is from 2012. This used to be true, but now MS at least doesn't charge companies to update games. They can do it for free. It was a huge deal about a year before the X came out. A lot of companies pushed out updates on Xbox they never released because of the cost.

However, MS still has high standards for certification, which is why it takes so long for stuff to be released on Xbox versus PC. They do this because they don't want your game to fry the user's console. BHVR could release a patch that makes the game crash and burns your video card, and while unlikely, as a PC user you take that risk (and as PC developers they can usually assure themselves you won't be exposed to such a risk in the first place, they aren't as sure for console because that's not their primary development platform). MS doesn't want that stuff to happen to Xbox users, so if your game doesn't work the way they want they don't let you push out the update.

Nice fact bro... But im a playstation guy myself... I think it work the same way with sony

thesuicidefox

@FinLadd said:
Nice fact bro... But im a playstation guy myself... I think it work the same way with sony

Probably, I don't own a PS so I wouldn't know. I can only comment on Xbox stuff.

Orion

@thesuicidefox said:

@Orion said:

@FinLadd said:
This can't be for real otherwise all game companys would be broke in no time. 

Yeah, I call bullshit. Such a price would make publishers go bankrupt, because they don't get 40000 per patch; patches are essentially irrelevant in terms of sales. Probably just another publisher whining about how game development is super expensive, even though game-related profits have constantly increased.

1) It did cost this much at the time the article was written. It was a huge point of contention between MS and indie devs for a long time until MS somewhat recently dropped to patch fee completely.
2) Do you have ANY idea how much it costs to make a game nowadays? Here is a chart from a decade ago...
(Here's the link, IDK why the picture is so small https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/vgsales/images/c/c6/Factor_5_dev_costs.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080705213346)

$20 million baseline to make a successful game in 2006. You know what it would cost today? $500 MILLION. Yep. That's the MINIMUM you need to make super high profile games like CoD or Battlefield. MINIMUM. And those games have way bigger budgets than $500 million. "But BVHR isn't EA/Activision, they are a small team with a small game." True, but that doesn't mean it's cheap for them to develop DBD. Chances are the game has costed them 10's of millions by this point, but since they make millions more over that budget (ie. profit) they can afford to continue to develop content for the game (which costs more money BTW). Trust, if the game wasn't making a profit we wouldn't be getting any more content right now.

Source for the graph? Is it adjusted for inflation?

FinLadd

Orion said:

@thesuicidefox said:

@Orion said:

@FinLadd said:
This can't be for real otherwise all game companys would be broke in no time. 

Yeah, I call bullshit. Such a price would make publishers go bankrupt, because they don't get 40000 per patch; patches are essentially irrelevant in terms of sales. Probably just another publisher whining about how game development is super expensive, even though game-related profits have constantly increased.

1) It did cost this much at the time the article was written. It was a huge point of contention between MS and indie devs for a long time until MS somewhat recently dropped to patch fee completely.
2) Do you have ANY idea how much it costs to make a game nowadays? Here is a chart from a decade ago...
(Here's the link, IDK why the picture is so small https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/vgsales/images/c/c6/Factor_5_dev_costs.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080705213346)

$20 million baseline to make a successful game in 2006. You know what it would cost today? $500 MILLION. Yep. That's the MINIMUM you need to make super high profile games like CoD or Battlefield. MINIMUM. And those games have way bigger budgets than $500 million. "But BVHR isn't EA/Activision, they are a small team with a small game." True, but that doesn't mean it's cheap for them to develop DBD. Chances are the game has costed them 10's of millions by this point, but since they make millions more over that budget (ie. profit) they can afford to continue to develop content for the game (which costs more money BTW). Trust, if the game wasn't making a profit we wouldn't be getting any more content right now.

Source for the graph? Is it adjusted for inflation?

Why you tagged me?or does it auto tag