Want to be a RBN playtester without the XNA costs?

[S1ckH4nds]

Hey everyone,

Love the RBN? Want to help make it the best it can be? RockGamer Studios is looking for a few good playtesters and peer reviewers to add to the Rock Band Network! If you think you’ve got what it takes to train a critical eye on the nitty-gritty of Rock Band charts, the RBN community can use your help. We will be supplying a select few applicants with four-month trial XNA subscriptions. If you have an Xbox 360, RB3, are 18 years of age or older, and have at least an Xbox Live Silver account, you’re eligible to apply.

Keep in mind that RBN testing and reviewing is a fairly intensive process with lots of replay involved, especially in the peer review stage. We will of course be compensating testers for all playtests and peer reviews submitted, pass or fail.

If you’re interested, get in touch with me via e-mail at chris *at* rockgamerstudios.com, with the following information:

1) Full name?
2) Age?
3) Consoles currently owned?
4) Xbox Live gamertag?
5) Preferred Rock Band instruments / difficulties?
6) Do you play any instruments in real life?
7) How many hours each week can you devote to playtesting RBN songs?
8) How many RBN songs do you own in your collection?
9) Who is your favorite artist in RBN?
10) What is your favorite song to play in RBN?

Thanks in advance, and we look forward to hearing from you!

[TheAnimeCow]

I want to again highlight the importance of being a through and meticulous playtester. Recently, some "testers" were funded by esteemed companys, and lets just say that there output was less than satisfactory and a weight on the community. Anyone putting themselves up for these positions better be very ready for the commitment that is required. Some things you will be required to do:

1. Thoroughly learn the authoring rules, and know what constitutes a major failing error, and what is a smaller error.
2. Play through songs repeatedly, searching for any pitch and consistency errors.
3. Always, and I mean ALWAYS, check the thread for a song before submitting a review. A major problem we've been having from certain "testers" is that they review a song, and then submit a review without checking to see if anyone else had made any comments or brought up any major game breaking issues, sometimes passing a song with a mile long error list already in the thread.

If it seems like I'm trying to scare people away, well that's because I am. The community does not need any more "Looks good, positive submitted" playtesters. We need good, through, competent testers. If you truly think you can handle this, then please jump right in. But if you just think "lol, this might be cool, imma pass all my favorite bands", then please look elsewhere and don't get involved.

Edit: I want to make it clear that I'm not discriminating against RGS and trying to scare people away from working with them specifically. I mean it as a general blanket statement about working on the RBN, not just playtesting for any specific company.

[Zemanator]

We will of course be compensating testers for all playtests and peer reviews submitted, pass or fail.

just wanted to comment on this;

while i agree the compensation is probably necessary to get people interested in spending the time to do all of this, but providing compensation for looking at RGS songs when sponsored by RGS creates an ENORMOUS amount of bias, which leads to all of the problems animecow mentioned or alluded to, and I think that a better approach would be to compensate your sponsors whenever one of your songs gets a review from another author or company as a direct result of what that tester did.

to clarify;
if a sponsor tester looks at 6 of your songs in a week, the bias involved may result in substandard testing, the tester submitting a blind positive, or only testing half the song, or whatever.

if a sponsor joins a weekly test/trade group, then they still submit the same 6 tests or reviews, weather good or bad, and your song(s) is guarenteed to get those 6 tests/reviews in return. they could also do 6 reviews or tests at random and ask for returns, and just about every company is pretty diligent with returning tests/reviews whenever they have time to do so.

It helps out the entire community, and helps eliminate the bias that stems from sponsors.

[seanhouser]

company's, and lets

Oh, the grammar! The GRAMMAR!!

[TheAnimeCow]

Oh, the grammar! The GRAMMAR!!

Google spellcheck, Y U do? XD

[kingtonyx]

I'd love to do this, but last time I got sponsored I had problems connecting Magma to my 360... I'd hate to take a spot and not be able to do anything with it

I should be able to fix the problem but if I couldn't then it's a waste of an XNA account :/

[BohemianMatt]

I'd be down to spend some work doing this, but I don't know if I'll have the time. About how many hours would we be looking at, ideally, for testers?

[Zemanator]

I'd be down to spend some work doing this, but I don't know if I'll have the time. About how many hours would we be looking at, ideally, for testers?

depending on the difficulty of the chart, the instrument, and how well it's charted in the version you're looking at, a playtest for one instrument can be anywhere from 30 minutes to 2 hours, with the average somewhere around 1-1.25 hours.

a good thorough PR is much longer

[Jarr3tt88]

depending on the difficulty of the chart, the instrument, and how well it's charted in the version you're looking at, a playtest for one instrument can be anywhere from 30 minutes to 2 hours, with the average somewhere around 1-1.25 hours.

a good thorough PR is much longer

30 mins is no where near enough for a thorough playtest. I'd say 1.5 hours minimum going through each difficulty and looking at band animations and such.

All play tests/play testers should be THOROUGH

[NoThru22]

just wanted to comment on this;

while i agree the compensation is probably necessary to get people interested in spending the time to do all of this, but providing compensation for looking at RGS songs when sponsored by RGS creates an ENORMOUS amount of bias, which leads to all of the problems animecow mentioned or alluded to, and I think that a better approach would be to compensate your sponsors whenever one of your songs gets a review from another author or company as a direct result of what that tester did.

to clarify;
if a sponsor tester looks at 6 of your songs in a week, the bias involved may result in substandard testing, the tester submitting a blind positive, or only testing half the song, or whatever.

if a sponsor joins a weekly test/trade group, then they still submit the same 6 tests or reviews, weather good or bad, and your song(s) is guarenteed to get those 6 tests/reviews in return. they could also do 6 reviews or tests at random and ask for returns, and just about every company is pretty diligent with returning tests/reviews whenever they have time to do so.

It helps out the entire community, and helps eliminate the bias that stems from sponsors.

They already do this for valid trades.