As a Roblox developer, it is currently too hard to get adequate testing before a full release of a new game.
The first game I had ever released, space frontier, had hit the front page after spending only ~1k on advertising. The intention was to get some decent testing. It got there from the top rated section. Unfortunately, it contained a bug that caused players to lose data. Because of this, the rating tanked dramatically afterwards. This ended up crippling the game.
Right now, advertising a game that is paid access to limit player count is expensive and inefficient. Other than that, I have no way of doing a proper âalpha testing phaseâ, without using some very roundabout method such as building a group.
If Roblox is able to give me control over max server count, I could easily and efficiently run a closed alpha/beta, without having to worry about the game suddenly blowing up in popularity.
One of the only developers Iâve ever seen that wants to have less players⌠I understand your point but there are other solutions to testing such as with friends or doing smaller tests with group members. Sadly the QA Tester Program got discontinued but that used to be a good way of getting feedback on your game, Iâm not sure if thereâs another community-ran thing similar to it. However, limiting the amount of players that can join your game is not the solution.
Most people complain about their game not getting discovered and a core aim and measurement of success for most game developers is how many players their game has. Iâm surprised to see a suggestion that would prevent a game from growing and being successful - it doesnât make sense from a realistic developer or business point of view. If a player discovers your game and isnât able to play it, they may never try to play it again. Limiting the players to your game would have a negative effect in all cases.
Though often bugs are unavoidable, the solution to having adequate testing before a game release is not to limit the players. If your game is still in beta and you expect bugs, making that clear to players might help avoid some of the frustration as data loss will not be unexpected.
Alphas and Betas with a limited set player count are a regular occurrence with games outside of roblox - it has been shown to be an effective technique for testing things on a larger scale than just a handful of buddies.
I do understand what you mean - obviously, the goal is not to limit the success of my game. But, itâs simply a reality that until I get some larger-scale testing, it is incredibly likely for there to be bugs that could be game-breaking, data removing, or anything else. Damage control on a game that happens to be successful can be incredibly difficult in this case.
In my opinion, I find it a lot more likely for something such as data loss to deter a player from playing again as opposed to getting a message that the maximum server limit has been reached.
This would add another tool to my toolbelt as a developer, and would allow me to keep an under 100 player count, for example, for safe, proper testing.
Albeit - yes, this is a bit niche, and I could see it harming devs who donât know how to use a feature like this properly.
The solution here is to get an actual testing team, players will never be able to provide you with detailed reports like a dedicated or out-sourced testing team will. Many free teams exist that will test your experience for absolutely free, a search on this forum will bring you right to them. Having an open-beta with a limited player count will mean youâll have less retention in your experience with players being able to play one day yet not the next. If a player is arbitrarily locked out of your experience, they are more likely to find a different experience that doesnât lock them out.
Chances of data loss wouldnât be decreased via limiting players afaik, the reason why games go into beta via paid-access is to decrease the liklihood of someone mass disliking a game after minor issues (since they bought access, it can be assumed that they are more likely to accept the fact that there may be bugs), the risk of data loss is not generally decreased via limiting player count.
But you should be testing at scale, big companies invest heavily into large scale testing and Iâve personally talked to many QA managers for the big-mega companies on Roblox who literally pay to have a large-scale testing team with hundreds of players. Long-term you will get absolutely nowhere by limiting your player count, you should be thinking about possible network failures and how to prevent them, not a band-aid solution that stunts your experienceâs growth.
In an ironic twist, limiting your player count would actually likely cause more people to dislike the game when they canât play at a later time and date. Plus, it doesnât fit with Robloxâs âsocialâ vision for the platform.