I will give you an example of why the statement said in the article is bad.
Ok lets say you open a bake shop, you have been making new cake recipes trying to nail that one just right. Your premier cake is carrot cake, and people want to try it badly.
So now you are a month from opening and you want it test, what do you do?
Well of course you pull out a month old recipe for your vanilla cake, then when people you complain you say "well it isn't our fault, this recipe is a beta and it is a month old beta, and this cake doesn't represent the true feel of our shop, you are all ungrateful whiners."
Now this doesn't mean the complaints and ungratefulness weren't a bit obsessive, however, they did have their place. A beta may not represent a final product, but when you got a game this big, you better showcase why your game is unique and why people should buy it, beta or not it is their job to make it look good to the masses. Metro is clearly not a map to showcase their game with, it is not 64man like PC users begged for, it is vechileless, the squads lack customization, and voice chat doesn't work yet, that is four major elements it lacks. It felt like it lacked major functions of the game, making it feel more like alpha testing #2 rather than beta testing.
So yeah I see their point and it is valid, but I also see the point of the other side.
That's all I've really been saying too. I quite like the Beta and I already have the game pre-ordered and will be getting it day 1, but if they were going to showcase this game as the true successor to BF2, I think they should have used a Conquest map with vehicles and 64player for PC...
Metro could have been Alpha
Caspian Border should have been Beta