So I want to speak my mind about the QA/Testing/Patching process from the posts I've been seeing here.
Note: I do not speak on behalf of Electronic Arts, BIoware, or Xbox/Microsoft - these are my own opinions and I'm only writing to better inform the player community. It is my hope that you will understand the process a little more so you can make better informed decisions about posting here.
A little background about myself - I used to work in the games industry with a pretty deep understanding of the game publishing process as well as console compliance and production.
So I think the best way for me to convey my thoughts is to take the most popular knee-jerk responses I've been seeing here and provinding my own thoughts on the matter, kind of like a FAQ format. Do note that I've simplified a lot of things to make it easier to digest.
"EA/Bioware won't listen to us!"
The reason why Bioware or EA has community boards to begin with is to foster information gathering. A huge part of that is to find out what bugs are impacting the public.
"They ignore us!"
They also have hundreds of forum posters. Many of us are posting bugs they already know about so it's not worth their time to make a response to every single instance. Also, do keep in mind that the production or development team is no position to make promises for legal and practical purposes. So rather than replying to every post with "Yes, we will fix it. / No, we will not." they will respond with "We are aware of it." They are not ignoring you.
They will ignore your post if you do nothing but rant about them, or post non-constructively, I will assure you of that.
"EA doesn't care about its paying customers."
That's always up for debate. My opinion is that they do care about its customers, but the real question is how do they treat their paying customers. They care because that is how they earn their keep. We should be debating about their methods to support the player community, not whether they care or not.
"EA doesn't care about the consoles."
I highly doubt that - any multiplatform publisher will care and pay close attention to ALL platforms involved. Intentionally ignoring a segment will hurt their bottom line / P&L. Not to mention the PR nightmare they endure. They make money from PS3 sales and they make money from Xbox 360 sales. There is no evidence to believe that they "dont care about consoles" nor for support.
"But EA knows about the bug but won't fix it."
I can assure you that bugs involving data loss, golden path crashing or prevents players from completing the game, or any bug that is flagged by PS3/Xbox 360 compliance are top-level priority bugs. They have been logged, triaged, and they are on some poor developer's plate right now with a "MUST FIX" flag on it.
"If they have it fixed, why can't they release a patch." / "But my bug is important!"
Your bug is important, and so far 100-200 other bugs they must fix. Note that you only see bugs that affect your gameplay. What you don't see are engine bugs, code-level issues, or the really nasty WTF development bugs that always make it to ship that impede on future sustaining engineering (patching) efforts.
For this reason, development houses are not going to turn over patches for every single fix. EVERY patch, be it on PC or console, requires a process to verify, pass internal compliance or BVT, and release across every localized language and or matching console. This takes up a lot of time, and a lot of money in the end. At a minimum, this kick-off process can take 2-4 weeks.
If they released a patch for every few bugs, even major ones, that means it's time taking out from fixing OTHER nasty bugs. It's a trade-off. This is precisely why you want to patch in larger batches so developers aren't tied up locking down game builds all of the time.
"I don't care about the process, the bug is HUGE!"
For every huge bug YOU see, there are at least 10 others of that same weight.
Another thing to worry about are regressions. Fixing code-level bugs are dangerous for various reasons, but the biggest thing is that fixing one bug unintentionally causing other bugs. This happens a lot more than you'd think, and unfortunately, it's all a part of the nature of software engineering. This is why even a released patch requires a Herculean effort from QA/Test to make sure everything is in the right state before they release it to the world.
"The QA team needs to be fired! How can they let [my] bug happen?"
Before we blame Test/QA for this, do know that they are not responsibile for determining what bugs to fix, but instead they're sponsible for identifying bugs. Period.
Developers are responsible for writing good code - if they write unstable code that results in bug explosion, that's their fault.
Producers are responsible for triaging and determining effective process. If they can't triage or prioritize nasty bugs from "who cares?" bugs, that's their fault.
That being said, most QA houses aren't necessarily equipped to find every development bug. Take the item overload bug that causes data loss / save file corruption. That is most likely caused by a code-level bug from failling to check an array (in our case a collection of vendor items).
QA teams are mostly playtesters who play through the game and log bugs. Test engineers are responsible for making sure that weird edge cases or aggressive handling are validated. The argument could be made that it was an edge case that should have been tested. I agree - I would have personally tested around this, but do note that Dragon Age is a HUGE game. There is no way that everything could have been tested. Test's objective is to make sure that 99% of potential bugs are fixed - but there is always that 1%. The reality is that for every one bug YOU saw, 99 other OMG bugs never saw the light of day.
"They have it fixed on PC, why not consoles?"
Releasing a patch on PC is much easier than a console patch. There are additional hoops they have to jump through because Sony and Microsoft have their own compliance process before they let you publish a patch. Think of them like the FDA and you're relasing a new food/drug item. Even for patches, they're treated like it's a new product (and rightfully so). This is to ensure that you didn't break the existing game or that the patch isn't going to go bad. The worst thing that could happen is to publish a broken patch in which case you have to make ANOTHER patch to fix that. And it costs money to run these concole compliance tests. I won't disclose details but it's not chump change.
Again, this may look like they don't care about consoles, but it's more of the fact that the console patching process requires more hurdles to jump through. Couple this with the desire to maintain patch fixes consistent with all 3 platforms, and that means they will have to invest a HUGE amount of time making sure that Patch X for PC = Patch X for Xbox and Patch X for PS3 as much as possible. Once they start code-spitting and the bug set is different for each platform, it's literally working on 3 different Dragon Age games at once.
"This game has bugs - I demand to have a game with no bugs."
Every software has bugs. Games have a much higher complexity than say, a web application. It is for this reason our industry has EULAs - you are buying the software as-is. Without them, everyone could claim "defective" on any bug, including a typo.
Let me put it this way, for every bug YOU know about, there are approximately 50-100 bugs you aren't even aware of. Some are bugs even developers don't know about it. That is the nature of software. Saying that you want every bug fixed is an impossible goal because I can guarantee you there are always ways to break software one way or another. That's like saying you want a car that is 100% maintence free forever. It won't happen, so don't demand it.
The proper expectation is the level of quality in software - you should be getting "good quality" for your money, not zero-bug count. I understand our pain, but you won't find a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow no matter how many times you demand it.
Repeat after me - every software has bugs. Games are no exception.
"I'm going to return Dragon Age and refuse to buy DA:Awakening."
That is perfectly within your right, you are voting with your wallet. Do note that your individual action is unlikely to trigger an adverse response from EA or Bioware. My only advice here is that you do it for the right reasons.
"I'm threatening EA with a lawsuit"
While this is also your right, do note that it is mostly futile and defeated by the EULA. Nothing in the EULA promises you will have a good time or that you will feel like a badass when you play the game. It promises that you will have software as-is and the only return policy is for defective or out-of-the-box damaged discs - nothing more. For practical purposes, I wouldn't do\\ it simply because I haven't heard of a case where a game developer has lose a lawsuit over bugs. Far more worse games in terms of game stability exist out there.
What you can and should do is post constructively on the forums.
"Ok, I'm done ranting, but how do I help EA/Bioware or POST CONSTRUCTIVELY"
Developers need four things - if you list out all four, then you will help them with their job by a lot.
(1) Description (The What) - Clear and concise detail of what the bug is.
(2) Repro Steps (The How) - How does one trigger the bug. Note that merely stating "X happened" is not a repro step. It's only indicating a symptom of the problem but not identifying the problem itself. This is the most important step in this process, if you don't list out how to get to the bug, then the developers/testers will have to do it and find out themselves. So if you know what these are, do list them, otherwise you make them waste a lot of time.
(3) Observation / Actual Result (The Who/When) - This details what actually happened or how the bug manifests in the game.
(4) Expected Results (The Why) - Usually self-explanatory, but if the bug isn't necessarily clear, you include why this is bad.
My $0.02.
- Wibble
Forums and Bugs - My $0.02.
Débuté par
Wibble
, mai 09 2010 11:16
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 10 mai 2010 - 04:55
Thajocoth
-
- Members
- 102 messages
The above is entirely in keeping with what I know as well. If you look at my posts, you'll see that when I had a theory about one particular bug (achievement bug), I ran a playthrough to test my theory, so that I could add more information to the bug report. And others have added more on top of that... As an end-user, this is a bit beyond what is expected of us, but I wanted to play through again anyway, and the devs could certainly use the additional information. It helps them pinpoint where to start looking.
I've gotten plenty of bug reports in the past that say something like "Crashes - 5% of the time.", with no additional information. Then I walk over to the tester, ask them about the bug, and say "What did you do right before the crash?" Their answer to that question, 95% of the time, tells me exactly where the bug is. For example "Oh, each time it crashed was right when the other player disconnected." (Then I ask why that was not in the bug report, and mention the event later in the post-mortem.) So the more information you give, the quicker the devs will figure it out. The devs are unlikely to send an end-user a message asking how they got a bug...
That said, I do not like the mentality of continuing to bugfix post-release. Some of these bugs are obvious enough that they should already have been known and set to top "do not ship with this bug" priority. (Like the loot delay.) The game would not have met Nintendo's standards. (When you fail Big N's quality control, you get a VERY nice bug list that has great detail as to exactly how they found each bug... It really helps ease the disappointment of such failure, and expedite sending the game back to their waiting list again. Yes, when you fail, you go to the back of the line when you resubmit. Nothing is assumed from the first submission. I would think Microsoft would do the same. This extra level of quality control is one the big advantages of being a console gamer, and I really don't want that to change.)
I've gotten plenty of bug reports in the past that say something like "Crashes - 5% of the time.", with no additional information. Then I walk over to the tester, ask them about the bug, and say "What did you do right before the crash?" Their answer to that question, 95% of the time, tells me exactly where the bug is. For example "Oh, each time it crashed was right when the other player disconnected." (Then I ask why that was not in the bug report, and mention the event later in the post-mortem.) So the more information you give, the quicker the devs will figure it out. The devs are unlikely to send an end-user a message asking how they got a bug...
That said, I do not like the mentality of continuing to bugfix post-release. Some of these bugs are obvious enough that they should already have been known and set to top "do not ship with this bug" priority. (Like the loot delay.) The game would not have met Nintendo's standards. (When you fail Big N's quality control, you get a VERY nice bug list that has great detail as to exactly how they found each bug... It really helps ease the disappointment of such failure, and expedite sending the game back to their waiting list again. Yes, when you fail, you go to the back of the line when you resubmit. Nothing is assumed from the first submission. I would think Microsoft would do the same. This extra level of quality control is one the big advantages of being a console gamer, and I really don't want that to change.)
Modifié par Thajocoth, 10 mai 2010 - 04:59 .
#3
Posté 10 mai 2010 - 10:08
Taiko Roshi
-
- Members
- 808 messages
TG:LR
Its fairly obvious that you HAVE NOT read any of the posts in this tech forum. We have done all the testing for EA/BW, we've had most of the glitches reported within the first month! And still, six months later we still wait for a fix while EA/BW pump out DLC and expansions.
In short, you full of **** and you are defending a company that does not give a **** about us or this game. There is nothing you can say to make that FACT any different. EA/BW support speaks for itself when compared with Gearbox's support for Borderlands. The evidence is there, all you have is empty words with no substances.
1. The game should never have been released in its current state.
2. The developers should have fixed the basic bugs within the first month like most other developers
3. Nothing you say in your post is reasonable considering BW has had six months to fix this game and amatuer modders, with no money, have been able to fix most of the bugs within weeks of them being found.
4. I smell a fanboy. None of your explanations hold any ground what so ever. Go have a look at what the modding community has done to fix the PC game after 1.03 and tell me you still believe in the utter bull**** in your OP!
ROFL at "knee jerk", buddy we have been patiently waiting for six months while EA/BW have shoved out crappy DLC and an Expansion. This has gone beyond knee jerk! Most of the bugs have been fixed by modders for the PC and yet we have nothing from EA/BW.
Its fairly obvious that you HAVE NOT read any of the posts in this tech forum. We have done all the testing for EA/BW, we've had most of the glitches reported within the first month! And still, six months later we still wait for a fix while EA/BW pump out DLC and expansions.
In short, you full of **** and you are defending a company that does not give a **** about us or this game. There is nothing you can say to make that FACT any different. EA/BW support speaks for itself when compared with Gearbox's support for Borderlands. The evidence is there, all you have is empty words with no substances.
1. The game should never have been released in its current state.
2. The developers should have fixed the basic bugs within the first month like most other developers
3. Nothing you say in your post is reasonable considering BW has had six months to fix this game and amatuer modders, with no money, have been able to fix most of the bugs within weeks of them being found.
4. I smell a fanboy. None of your explanations hold any ground what so ever. Go have a look at what the modding community has done to fix the PC game after 1.03 and tell me you still believe in the utter bull**** in your OP!
ROFL at "knee jerk", buddy we have been patiently waiting for six months while EA/BW have shoved out crappy DLC and an Expansion. This has gone beyond knee jerk! Most of the bugs have been fixed by modders for the PC and yet we have nothing from EA/BW.
Modifié par Taiko Roshi, 10 mai 2010 - 10:14 .
#4
Posté 10 mai 2010 - 11:08
MuLepton
-
- Members
- 72 messages
Wibble, you made a very well thought out and detailed post, but I'm afraid you're partly preaching to the choir and partly missing the point why people are upset.
No one expects a completely bugfree game; I think everyone who's ever played a game knows that it will have bugs. Having written my share of code (well, if you can call it code, I'm a physicist, most programmers would probably be appalled at how my scripts/programs are structured) I know that you'll get a lot of bugs in any piece of software and only thorough testing will find all of them. Debugging is a constant work in progress.
However. The Xbox version of DA:O has seen one measly patch since release (what, six months ago?) and that fixed an issue that was introduced in a title update which was released directly prior to that patch.
There are several severe bugs that have been found by the community and fixes for which have also been found by the community, yet - no patch has been released. Neither has there been any communication recently by BW employees. It has already been pointed out how much more active they are in other forums. Compare that with, e.g. the Mac support forums on the official WoW board - practically every post gets a helpful reply by a Blizzard employee.
In short, BW's customer communications is severly lacking.
About QA: I might be willing to believe that the vendor overload bug might not have been found in the original testing process (although it's a stretch), but do you remember the spec-lock bug that they introduced in the above-mentioned title update? How the hell can that fall something like that through the cracks? There were posts about it literally minutes after people applied the update. It's not like you had to play the game for several hours to find out your specs were suddenly re-locked.
TL;DR version: People aren't upset that the game is buggy. People are upset that there's been no essential patch since release, despite the fact that the community did an outstanding job as beta testers on a released product. That and the abysmal communication policy.
No one expects a completely bugfree game; I think everyone who's ever played a game knows that it will have bugs. Having written my share of code (well, if you can call it code, I'm a physicist, most programmers would probably be appalled at how my scripts/programs are structured) I know that you'll get a lot of bugs in any piece of software and only thorough testing will find all of them. Debugging is a constant work in progress.
However. The Xbox version of DA:O has seen one measly patch since release (what, six months ago?) and that fixed an issue that was introduced in a title update which was released directly prior to that patch.
There are several severe bugs that have been found by the community and fixes for which have also been found by the community, yet - no patch has been released. Neither has there been any communication recently by BW employees. It has already been pointed out how much more active they are in other forums. Compare that with, e.g. the Mac support forums on the official WoW board - practically every post gets a helpful reply by a Blizzard employee.
In short, BW's customer communications is severly lacking.
About QA: I might be willing to believe that the vendor overload bug might not have been found in the original testing process (although it's a stretch), but do you remember the spec-lock bug that they introduced in the above-mentioned title update? How the hell can that fall something like that through the cracks? There were posts about it literally minutes after people applied the update. It's not like you had to play the game for several hours to find out your specs were suddenly re-locked.
TL;DR version: People aren't upset that the game is buggy. People are upset that there's been no essential patch since release, despite the fact that the community did an outstanding job as beta testers on a released product. That and the abysmal communication policy.
#5
Posté 10 mai 2010 - 12:51
Thajocoth
-
- Members
- 102 messages
I have no idea what "TG:LR" means. I'm familiar with "TL:DR", if that's what you meant.
WoW is an MMO. They HAVE to have round-the-clock support. If a server goes down, for example, they're likely to lose money. I've heard they even give some employees beepers, keeping them on-call like doctors for server issues... They probably have specific support staff separate from their usual devs and such.
There are an awful lot of things that we simply do not know, and even if the devs posted here every day, we are not likely to know, and I have a tendency to give people the benefit of doubt:
Can fixes made by modders even be used? Those fixes are not BioWare's code. Do the modder's fixes introduce new bugs? Are they compliant with both Microsoft and EA's standards?
Have they submitted patches to Microsoft that simply got denied? Has EA denied any patches due to DRM conflictions?
Are they resorting to completely rewriting core systems to address issues too ingrained into them to apply small patches to? How long would that take? Is it even possible to release patches that way?
Did someone who worked on a very critical core system that has some of the more major bugs in it leave the team partway through development? (This is one of the best ways to get huge central bugs no one has any idea what to do about.)
How are they managing bug fixing? Are they properly assigning bugs to the devs that should be looking into them? Are bug assignments ping-ponging between devs who each think the bug is in the other's code, or are there project managers checking that this doesn't happen?
6 months... How many man-hours? There is a huge difference between, say, 20 people working on it for 6 months, and 2 people doing so. We know DLC is being worked on, but we don't know how much of that even requires new core code... We don't know how many of the bugs are being fixed by the people who wrote the systems with those bugs (It's a lot faster to debug one's own code, but management might not know that.)
There is no way any dev would ever answer any of these questions... And I'd like to think that the last 3 there don't happen very often in larger dev studios, but who knows if the increase in size adds to confusion. I'm used to no more than 3 programmers on a project... So very small comparatively.
So, what really could they have to say here? Should they post every time they boot up their comps each day, to let us know that they're working on bugfixes today again? That seems rather pointless imo...
WoW is an MMO. They HAVE to have round-the-clock support. If a server goes down, for example, they're likely to lose money. I've heard they even give some employees beepers, keeping them on-call like doctors for server issues... They probably have specific support staff separate from their usual devs and such.
There are an awful lot of things that we simply do not know, and even if the devs posted here every day, we are not likely to know, and I have a tendency to give people the benefit of doubt:
Can fixes made by modders even be used? Those fixes are not BioWare's code. Do the modder's fixes introduce new bugs? Are they compliant with both Microsoft and EA's standards?
Have they submitted patches to Microsoft that simply got denied? Has EA denied any patches due to DRM conflictions?
Are they resorting to completely rewriting core systems to address issues too ingrained into them to apply small patches to? How long would that take? Is it even possible to release patches that way?
Did someone who worked on a very critical core system that has some of the more major bugs in it leave the team partway through development? (This is one of the best ways to get huge central bugs no one has any idea what to do about.)
How are they managing bug fixing? Are they properly assigning bugs to the devs that should be looking into them? Are bug assignments ping-ponging between devs who each think the bug is in the other's code, or are there project managers checking that this doesn't happen?
6 months... How many man-hours? There is a huge difference between, say, 20 people working on it for 6 months, and 2 people doing so. We know DLC is being worked on, but we don't know how much of that even requires new core code... We don't know how many of the bugs are being fixed by the people who wrote the systems with those bugs (It's a lot faster to debug one's own code, but management might not know that.)
There is no way any dev would ever answer any of these questions... And I'd like to think that the last 3 there don't happen very often in larger dev studios, but who knows if the increase in size adds to confusion. I'm used to no more than 3 programmers on a project... So very small comparatively.
So, what really could they have to say here? Should they post every time they boot up their comps each day, to let us know that they're working on bugfixes today again? That seems rather pointless imo...
Modifié par Thajocoth, 10 mai 2010 - 12:55 .
#6
Posté 10 mai 2010 - 01:07
MuLepton
-
- Members
- 72 messages
There is no way any dev would ever answer any of these questions.
I kind of disagree. If you look at Ghostcrawler over at (again) the WoW forums, he's very, very forthcoming with information about the development process. And I did point out the Mac support forums for a reason - most of the bugs that are reported there don't have anything to do with the fact that WoW's a MMOG, they're platform/client specific, something that applies to these forums here as well.
So, what really could they have to say here? Should they post every time they boot up their comps each day, to let us know that they're working on bugfixes today again? That seems rather pointless imo...
I agree that posting "We're working on a patch." every three days would be pointless. Not posting at all is equally pointless though, especially if you see how much attention other forums get.
Going on a tangent a bit: SW:TOR will crash and burn hugely if BW doesn't improve on patch cycles and customer communication. These forums would be the perfect opportunity to actually hone their skills in that regard and give potential buyers confidence in their ability to handle that kind of game. Right now, I'm not seeing this. Based on how they deal with things here so far, I wouldn't recommend getting SW:TOR to anybody.
#8
Posté 10 mai 2010 - 04:03
edgarcabrerauk
-
- Members
- 219 messages
Thank you for the insight on game development processes....
I've been working in various software development projects and as business consultant as well for many big companies and I will debate or agree on your comments...
[quote]
"EA/Bioware won't listen to us!"
The reason why Bioware or EA has community boards to begin with is to foster information gathering. A huge part of that is to find out what bugs are impacting the public.
[/quote]
Agree, but this more an assignment to the marketing area. The information gathering and customer response are part of the data information for marketing purposes, mainly. The problem here is: this forum is not acting as communication link, it is more like a call centre service where you talk with a representative who only takes complains and do nothing... the fact to have a forum, from a enterprise point of view is only for costumer data acquisition.
[quote]
"They ignore us!"
They also have hundreds of forum posters. Many of us are posting bugs they already know about so it's not worth their time to make a response to every single instance. Also, do keep in mind that the production or development team is no position to make promises for legal and practical purposes. So rather than replying to every post with "Yes, we will fix it. / No, we will not." they will respond with "We are aware of it." They are not ignoring you.
They will ignore your post if you do nothing but rant about them, or post non-constructively, I will assure you of that.
[/quote]
This is pretty much explained above....
[quote]
"EA doesn't care about its paying customers."
That's always up for debate. My opinion is that they do care about its customers, but the real question is how do they treat their paying customers. They care because that is how they earn their keep. We should be debating about their methods to support the player community, not whether they care or not.
[/quote]
Agreed, but a paying customer seems to be in a very low priority due to the non existent support.
[quote]
"EA doesn't care about the consoles."
I highly doubt that - any multiplatform publisher will care and pay close attention to ALL platforms involved. Intentionally ignoring a segment will hurt their bottom line / P&L. Not to mention the PR nightmare they endure. They make money from PS3 sales and they make money from Xbox 360 sales. There is no evidence to believe that they "dont care about consoles" nor for support.
[/quote]
Taking in account the percentage that consoles represent to EA in this particular game, which could be around 15%, it doesn't seem as very revenue stream, which from P&L point of view, this 15% is an acceptable loss... as for the evidence, there's no evidence of a public statement from EA, but the lack of fixing bugs is the evidence consumers (or anyone) need to think they do not care...
[quote]
"But EA knows about the bug but won't fix it."
I can assure you that bugs involving data loss, golden path crashing or prevents players from completing the game, or any bug that is flagged by PS3/Xbox 360 compliance are top-level priority bugs. They have been logged, triaged, and they are on some poor developer's plate right now with a "MUST FIX" flag on it.
[/quote]
Agreed, but the lack of execution on fixing means no results... the knowledge of the existence of an issue do not resolve the issue, executing a fix, it does resolve the issue.
[quote]
"If they have it fixed, why can't they release a patch." / "But my bug is important!"
Your bug is important, and so far 100-200 other bugs they must fix. Note that you only see bugs that affect your gameplay. What you don't see are engine bugs, code-level issues, or the really nasty WTF development bugs that always make it to ship that impede on future sustaining engineering (patching) efforts.
For this reason, development houses are not going to turn over patches for every single fix. EVERY patch, be it on PC or console, requires a process to verify, pass internal compliance or BVT, and release across every localized language and or matching console. This takes up a lot of time, and a lot of money in the end. At a minimum, this kick-off process can take 2-4 weeks.
If they released a patch for every few bugs, even major ones, that means it's time taking out from fixing OTHER nasty bugs. It's a trade-off. This is precisely why you want to patch in larger batches so developers aren't tied up locking down game builds all of the time.
[/quote]
Thank you for clarifying the patching process. First, it is not a matter of subjectiveness on saying "my bug", that bug has been acknowledge by another 100s of people, therefore is an objective fact part of the product.
Yes, usually a patch should address at least a number of bugs and enhancements, but here there's something that EA has done and it's contrary to what you are saying: on the release of RTO, many bugs were introduced... weeks later, EA issued a patch to address only the bugs made by RTO...
As for the performance of the patching team, after 6 months!! of not addressing even the "out of the box" bugs, it is very low and very mediocre... usually when you deliver a product, you use 2 months to capture and log the bugs in the product, then they are prioritised and the patch should be done in 1 month, then 1 week for localisation and another 2 weeks for platform wrapping (PS3/PC/Xbox).... that is 4 months in a very extreme case, EA so far: 6 months...
As a benchmark, "Boderlands" came out with lots of bugs, 3 months later, all the bugs were addressed...
[quote]
"I don't care about the process, the bug is HUGE!"
For every huge bug YOU see, there are at least 10 others of that same weight.
Another thing to worry about are regressions. Fixing code-level bugs are dangerous for various reasons, but the biggest thing is that fixing one bug unintentionally causing other bugs. This happens a lot more than you'd think, and unfortunately, it's all a part of the nature of software engineering. This is why even a released patch requires a Herculean effort from QA/Test to make sure everything is in the right state before they release it to the world.
[/quote]
Having problems wit regressions only show how poor and weak is the foundation on the software used to create a product, this means, the technology used to create a product is not the right from the very beginning and it is almost impossible to fix...
[quote]
"The QA team needs to be fired! How can they let [my] bug happen?"
Before we blame Test/QA for this, do know that they are not responsibile for determining what bugs to fix, but instead they're sponsible for identifying bugs. Period.
Developers are responsible for writing good code - if they write unstable code that results in bug explosion, that's their fault.
Producers are responsible for triaging and determining effective process. If they can't triage or prioritize nasty bugs from "who cares?" bugs, that's their fault.
That being said, most QA houses aren't necessarily equipped to find every development bug. Take the item overload bug that causes data loss / save file corruption. That is most likely caused by a code-level bug from failling to check an array (in our case a collection of vendor items).
QA teams are mostly playtesters who play through the game and log bugs. Test engineers are responsible for making sure that weird edge cases or aggressive handling are validated. The argument could be made that it was an edge case that should have been tested. I agree - I would have personally tested around this, but do note that Dragon Age is a HUGE game. There is no way that everything could have been tested. Test's objective is to make sure that 99% of potential bugs are fixed - but there is always that 1%. The reality is that for every one bug YOU saw, 99 other OMG bugs never saw the light of day.
[/quote]
Agreed, but there are functional bugs, interface bugs, technical bugs and so on... usually there the tech bugs (meaning: game engine, OS, etc) are beyond your control and the provider should fix it. Most of the bugs we are depicting are functional, i.e dex bug. As for the "YOU. YOUR, MY" quotations, this game is a consumer product, it is not business application or so, the costumer expects a quality game and the bugs that "YOU. YOUR, MY" are seeing should be of priority one, sorry but this is the way it has to be... remember a Consumer Product...
[quote]
"They have it fixed on PC, why not consoles?"
Releasing a patch on PC is much easier than a console patch. There are additional hoops they have to jump through because Sony and Microsoft have their own compliance process before they let you publish a patch. Think of them like the FDA and you're relasing a new food/drug item. Even for patches, they're treated like it's a new product (and rightfully so). This is to ensure that you didn't break the existing game or that the patch isn't going to go bad. The worst thing that could happen is to publish a broken patch in which case you have to make ANOTHER patch to fix that. And it costs money to run these concole compliance tests. I won't disclose details but it's not chump change.
Again, this may look like they don't care about consoles, but it's more of the fact that the console patching process requires more hurdles to jump through. Couple this with the desire to maintain patch fixes consistent with all 3 platforms, and that means they will have to invest a HUGE amount of time making sure that Patch X for PC = Patch X for Xbox and Patch X for PS3 as much as possible. Once they start code-spitting and the bug set is different for each platform, it's literally working on 3 different Dragon Age games at once.
[/quote]
Thank you for the info, but that doesn't justify the inaction on fixing the bugs first, the compliance of Xbox and PS3 should be well established processes and to be done on the delivery stage, if some rules apply on the development of fixing bugs, such rules must be applied.
[quote]
"This game has bugs - I demand to have a game with no bugs."
Every software has bugs. Games have a much higher complexity than say, a web application. It is for this reason our industry has EULAs - you are buying the software as-is. Without them, everyone could claim "defective" on any bug, including a typo.
Let me put it this way, for every bug YOU know about, there are approximately 50-100 bugs you aren't even aware of. Some are bugs even developers don't know about it. That is the nature of software. Saying that you want every bug fixed is an impossible goal because I can guarantee you there are always ways to break software one way or another. That's like saying you want a car that is 100% maintence free forever. It won't happen, so don't demand it.
The proper expectation is the level of quality in software - you should be getting "good quality" for your money, not zero-bug count. I understand our pain, but you won't find a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow no matter how many times you demand it.
Repeat after me - every software has bugs. Games are no exception.
[/quote]
Well, the little big problem is that the quantity and impact of the bugs makes this a very defective game and yes, it is impossible to have a zero-bug game, but it is POSSIBLE to have a "good quality"game for example: Batman Arkham Asylum, Fallout 3 and so on... to say the EULA and else does not deny the fact that this game is defective, period.
Repeat after me - a game is a consumer product.
[quote]
"Ok, I'm done ranting, but how do I help EA/Bioware or POST CONSTRUCTIVELY"
Developers need four things - if you list out all four, then you will help them with their job by a lot.
(1) Description (The What) - Clear and concise detail of what the bug is.
(2) Repro Steps (The How) - How does one trigger the bug. Note that merely stating "X happened" is not a repro step. It's only indicating a symptom of the problem but not identifying the problem itself. This is the most important step in this process, if you don't list out how to get to the bug, then the developers/testers will have to do it and find out themselves. So if you know what these are, do list them, otherwise you make them waste a lot of time.
(3) Observation / Actual Result (The Who/When) - This details what actually happened or how the bug manifests in the game.
(4) Expected Results (The Why) - Usually self-explanatory, but if the bug isn't necessarily clear, you include why this is bad.
My $0.02.
- Wibble
[/quote]
Thank for lecturing and give us a reason to live, for showing the light at the end of the tunnel but you have missed that all this "ranting, whining, etc" is the result of the INACTION after 6 months on FIXING a CONSUMER PRODUCT that EA sells DEFECTIVE as-is at PREMIUM price.
YOU must repeat yourself, a game is a consumer product... therefore the bugs and complains that the customer do must be addressed since is what you sell, you don't sell spare parts, you don't sell books or any other software.
You can write code and come with all this tech related crap trying to lecture us about how we should behave when the product is faulty and defective... but the purchaser of this product is the one who pays your wage and keeps your company going on.
Your ignorance on how you treat your client is as big as your arrogance to came here to give us a lesson, no wonder why they keep you behind a monitor...
I've been working in various software development projects and as business consultant as well for many big companies and I will debate or agree on your comments...
[quote]
"EA/Bioware won't listen to us!"
The reason why Bioware or EA has community boards to begin with is to foster information gathering. A huge part of that is to find out what bugs are impacting the public.
[/quote]
Agree, but this more an assignment to the marketing area. The information gathering and customer response are part of the data information for marketing purposes, mainly. The problem here is: this forum is not acting as communication link, it is more like a call centre service where you talk with a representative who only takes complains and do nothing... the fact to have a forum, from a enterprise point of view is only for costumer data acquisition.
[quote]
"They ignore us!"
They also have hundreds of forum posters. Many of us are posting bugs they already know about so it's not worth their time to make a response to every single instance. Also, do keep in mind that the production or development team is no position to make promises for legal and practical purposes. So rather than replying to every post with "Yes, we will fix it. / No, we will not." they will respond with "We are aware of it." They are not ignoring you.
They will ignore your post if you do nothing but rant about them, or post non-constructively, I will assure you of that.
[/quote]
This is pretty much explained above....
[quote]
"EA doesn't care about its paying customers."
That's always up for debate. My opinion is that they do care about its customers, but the real question is how do they treat their paying customers. They care because that is how they earn their keep. We should be debating about their methods to support the player community, not whether they care or not.
[/quote]
Agreed, but a paying customer seems to be in a very low priority due to the non existent support.
[quote]
"EA doesn't care about the consoles."
I highly doubt that - any multiplatform publisher will care and pay close attention to ALL platforms involved. Intentionally ignoring a segment will hurt their bottom line / P&L. Not to mention the PR nightmare they endure. They make money from PS3 sales and they make money from Xbox 360 sales. There is no evidence to believe that they "dont care about consoles" nor for support.
[/quote]
Taking in account the percentage that consoles represent to EA in this particular game, which could be around 15%, it doesn't seem as very revenue stream, which from P&L point of view, this 15% is an acceptable loss... as for the evidence, there's no evidence of a public statement from EA, but the lack of fixing bugs is the evidence consumers (or anyone) need to think they do not care...
[quote]
"But EA knows about the bug but won't fix it."
I can assure you that bugs involving data loss, golden path crashing or prevents players from completing the game, or any bug that is flagged by PS3/Xbox 360 compliance are top-level priority bugs. They have been logged, triaged, and they are on some poor developer's plate right now with a "MUST FIX" flag on it.
[/quote]
Agreed, but the lack of execution on fixing means no results... the knowledge of the existence of an issue do not resolve the issue, executing a fix, it does resolve the issue.
[quote]
"If they have it fixed, why can't they release a patch." / "But my bug is important!"
Your bug is important, and so far 100-200 other bugs they must fix. Note that you only see bugs that affect your gameplay. What you don't see are engine bugs, code-level issues, or the really nasty WTF development bugs that always make it to ship that impede on future sustaining engineering (patching) efforts.
For this reason, development houses are not going to turn over patches for every single fix. EVERY patch, be it on PC or console, requires a process to verify, pass internal compliance or BVT, and release across every localized language and or matching console. This takes up a lot of time, and a lot of money in the end. At a minimum, this kick-off process can take 2-4 weeks.
If they released a patch for every few bugs, even major ones, that means it's time taking out from fixing OTHER nasty bugs. It's a trade-off. This is precisely why you want to patch in larger batches so developers aren't tied up locking down game builds all of the time.
[/quote]
Thank you for clarifying the patching process. First, it is not a matter of subjectiveness on saying "my bug", that bug has been acknowledge by another 100s of people, therefore is an objective fact part of the product.
Yes, usually a patch should address at least a number of bugs and enhancements, but here there's something that EA has done and it's contrary to what you are saying: on the release of RTO, many bugs were introduced... weeks later, EA issued a patch to address only the bugs made by RTO...
As for the performance of the patching team, after 6 months!! of not addressing even the "out of the box" bugs, it is very low and very mediocre... usually when you deliver a product, you use 2 months to capture and log the bugs in the product, then they are prioritised and the patch should be done in 1 month, then 1 week for localisation and another 2 weeks for platform wrapping (PS3/PC/Xbox).... that is 4 months in a very extreme case, EA so far: 6 months...
As a benchmark, "Boderlands" came out with lots of bugs, 3 months later, all the bugs were addressed...
[quote]
"I don't care about the process, the bug is HUGE!"
For every huge bug YOU see, there are at least 10 others of that same weight.
Another thing to worry about are regressions. Fixing code-level bugs are dangerous for various reasons, but the biggest thing is that fixing one bug unintentionally causing other bugs. This happens a lot more than you'd think, and unfortunately, it's all a part of the nature of software engineering. This is why even a released patch requires a Herculean effort from QA/Test to make sure everything is in the right state before they release it to the world.
[/quote]
Having problems wit regressions only show how poor and weak is the foundation on the software used to create a product, this means, the technology used to create a product is not the right from the very beginning and it is almost impossible to fix...
[quote]
"The QA team needs to be fired! How can they let [my] bug happen?"
Before we blame Test/QA for this, do know that they are not responsibile for determining what bugs to fix, but instead they're sponsible for identifying bugs. Period.
Developers are responsible for writing good code - if they write unstable code that results in bug explosion, that's their fault.
Producers are responsible for triaging and determining effective process. If they can't triage or prioritize nasty bugs from "who cares?" bugs, that's their fault.
That being said, most QA houses aren't necessarily equipped to find every development bug. Take the item overload bug that causes data loss / save file corruption. That is most likely caused by a code-level bug from failling to check an array (in our case a collection of vendor items).
QA teams are mostly playtesters who play through the game and log bugs. Test engineers are responsible for making sure that weird edge cases or aggressive handling are validated. The argument could be made that it was an edge case that should have been tested. I agree - I would have personally tested around this, but do note that Dragon Age is a HUGE game. There is no way that everything could have been tested. Test's objective is to make sure that 99% of potential bugs are fixed - but there is always that 1%. The reality is that for every one bug YOU saw, 99 other OMG bugs never saw the light of day.
[/quote]
Agreed, but there are functional bugs, interface bugs, technical bugs and so on... usually there the tech bugs (meaning: game engine, OS, etc) are beyond your control and the provider should fix it. Most of the bugs we are depicting are functional, i.e dex bug. As for the "YOU. YOUR, MY" quotations, this game is a consumer product, it is not business application or so, the costumer expects a quality game and the bugs that "YOU. YOUR, MY" are seeing should be of priority one, sorry but this is the way it has to be... remember a Consumer Product...
[quote]
"They have it fixed on PC, why not consoles?"
Releasing a patch on PC is much easier than a console patch. There are additional hoops they have to jump through because Sony and Microsoft have their own compliance process before they let you publish a patch. Think of them like the FDA and you're relasing a new food/drug item. Even for patches, they're treated like it's a new product (and rightfully so). This is to ensure that you didn't break the existing game or that the patch isn't going to go bad. The worst thing that could happen is to publish a broken patch in which case you have to make ANOTHER patch to fix that. And it costs money to run these concole compliance tests. I won't disclose details but it's not chump change.
Again, this may look like they don't care about consoles, but it's more of the fact that the console patching process requires more hurdles to jump through. Couple this with the desire to maintain patch fixes consistent with all 3 platforms, and that means they will have to invest a HUGE amount of time making sure that Patch X for PC = Patch X for Xbox and Patch X for PS3 as much as possible. Once they start code-spitting and the bug set is different for each platform, it's literally working on 3 different Dragon Age games at once.
[/quote]
Thank you for the info, but that doesn't justify the inaction on fixing the bugs first, the compliance of Xbox and PS3 should be well established processes and to be done on the delivery stage, if some rules apply on the development of fixing bugs, such rules must be applied.
[quote]
"This game has bugs - I demand to have a game with no bugs."
Every software has bugs. Games have a much higher complexity than say, a web application. It is for this reason our industry has EULAs - you are buying the software as-is. Without them, everyone could claim "defective" on any bug, including a typo.
Let me put it this way, for every bug YOU know about, there are approximately 50-100 bugs you aren't even aware of. Some are bugs even developers don't know about it. That is the nature of software. Saying that you want every bug fixed is an impossible goal because I can guarantee you there are always ways to break software one way or another. That's like saying you want a car that is 100% maintence free forever. It won't happen, so don't demand it.
The proper expectation is the level of quality in software - you should be getting "good quality" for your money, not zero-bug count. I understand our pain, but you won't find a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow no matter how many times you demand it.
Repeat after me - every software has bugs. Games are no exception.
[/quote]
Well, the little big problem is that the quantity and impact of the bugs makes this a very defective game and yes, it is impossible to have a zero-bug game, but it is POSSIBLE to have a "good quality"game for example: Batman Arkham Asylum, Fallout 3 and so on... to say the EULA and else does not deny the fact that this game is defective, period.
Repeat after me - a game is a consumer product.
[quote]
"Ok, I'm done ranting, but how do I help EA/Bioware or POST CONSTRUCTIVELY"
Developers need four things - if you list out all four, then you will help them with their job by a lot.
(1) Description (The What) - Clear and concise detail of what the bug is.
(2) Repro Steps (The How) - How does one trigger the bug. Note that merely stating "X happened" is not a repro step. It's only indicating a symptom of the problem but not identifying the problem itself. This is the most important step in this process, if you don't list out how to get to the bug, then the developers/testers will have to do it and find out themselves. So if you know what these are, do list them, otherwise you make them waste a lot of time.
(3) Observation / Actual Result (The Who/When) - This details what actually happened or how the bug manifests in the game.
(4) Expected Results (The Why) - Usually self-explanatory, but if the bug isn't necessarily clear, you include why this is bad.
My $0.02.
- Wibble
[/quote]
Thank for lecturing and give us a reason to live, for showing the light at the end of the tunnel but you have missed that all this "ranting, whining, etc" is the result of the INACTION after 6 months on FIXING a CONSUMER PRODUCT that EA sells DEFECTIVE as-is at PREMIUM price.
YOU must repeat yourself, a game is a consumer product... therefore the bugs and complains that the customer do must be addressed since is what you sell, you don't sell spare parts, you don't sell books or any other software.
You can write code and come with all this tech related crap trying to lecture us about how we should behave when the product is faulty and defective... but the purchaser of this product is the one who pays your wage and keeps your company going on.
Your ignorance on how you treat your client is as big as your arrogance to came here to give us a lesson, no wonder why they keep you behind a monitor...
Modifié par edgarcabrerauk, 10 mai 2010 - 04:16 .
#9
Posté 10 mai 2010 - 04:36
13Dannyboy13
-
- Members
- 788 messages
One thing that stands out for me is the expansion, sure they started work on it a while before it was released, but they didn't even make minor fixes, meaning pretty much every bug in origins carries over. I do understand that there's extra hoops to jump through for releasing a patch on consoles, but it's like they're not even trying, I mean they've had six+ months and we have nothing, not even fixes for small bugs like the dex bug which is a simple tweak. Whether it's the fact that they have almost no one working on fixes, or that fixes are just down at the bottom of the priority list, there is really no excuse for the way that they've treated us. The generic "we're looking into it" line gets old when it's only used at the same time that they ask us to buy more dlc or give them votes for a contest. A real update with solid info about the progress of fixes would be that hard every month or so to show us that things really are being worked on, even if they said that it would take a while. As for reporting the bugs there's countless threads filled with detailed info on the bugs, how to recreate them etc, I mean we've even told them the exact number of items needed to overload the vendor. I do understand that pc and console patches are different, but since the community has already fixed most of the bugs on pc, I don't understand why we're still waiting for a real fix this long after release. Honestly, from EA's track record I think they care about the money they can make off of us, and not us as gamers, it may be a small difference, but it is noticable.
#10
Guest_Maviarab_*
Posté 10 mai 2010 - 04:39
Guest_Maviarab_*
Guest_Maviarab_*
-
- Guests
Why do pompous over egotistical people feel the need to keep telling US theway things work?
Insulting my intelligence is just...well...insulting....
Insulting my intelligence is just...well...insulting....
#11
Posté 10 mai 2010 - 07:32
Wibble
-
- Members
- 4 messages
I'm not here to preach to the choir and I was fairly objective on my stance with EA/Bioware.
You can always vote with your wallet - what I do take a point against are the me-me-me posts on this forum. That being said, if you are not happy with the way they have executed, including the lack of patch support, feeling that they let the user community do their testing, then vote with your wallet - I really don't care what others may think of me since I don't work for EA/Bioware nor do I run their production or test teams.
Personally, I feel that their production process has misprioritized their releases and their dev pipeline is stretched too thin - if that is done in the name of cost-cutting then that is something we should all object to. At D-Day + 6 months, I wouldn't have personally let the hi-pri issues stand out this long. They're clues to me that their dev process is either broken, inefficient, or production is asleep on the wheel. It takes a lot more than just management simply telling them to not fix something given how vocal the community is for this delay.
Just because the player community made unofficial fixes to the PC side does not necessarily fix the actual core issue. More often then not, people tweaking a file here or there fixes the symptom, but leaves the problem very much alive. Things like the loot delay may seem like a simple bug to fix , but what if they were caused by engine performance? Then you're talking about a very risky bug to fix. Whether they knew about it or not during ship is irrelevant, someone likely made the decision to punt or postpone the bug and devote resources into fixing less risky issues that have a higher impact ratio.
Making a comparison between a standard game and WoW misses the point. If you had to pay a monthly subscription fee for Dragon Age, then you should expect a much higher level of support.
I agree - but I also think any development team, especially a stand-alone release (unlike WoW where it's a service-based game) wants to deal with sustaining engineering any more than they have to. It's too much of a sink in resources and money. But on the other hand, if you fail to address it, you face a very angry customer base that is likely to turn on you.
Regarding compliance passes. Nintendo is VERY stringent on their allowed bugs because they don't have a supportable model for patches, especially for handhelds. Once you ship a cartridge of any sort, you cannot change it in the future. So any bugs that exist on day-one remain forever.
Sony and Microsoft platforms support patching but this does not mean you should ever use it as a way to buy time for an incomplete game. In practice, this does unfortunately occur. Whether you fail or pass compliance, you are handed a list of every bug they found during compliance testing. The compliance team is not supposed to substitute for QA, they're mostly looking for security, platform breaking, and crashing issues. They typically do not look for edge cases as a pass is timeboxed to 1-2 weeks (so the vendor bug is unlikely to be found in compliance).
If PS3/Xbox compliance found it, then someone dropped the ball or made a decision to ship with a known bug. In this giant list there are usually a large set of conditional bugs before they can allowed to resubmit. If they don't fix them, they are not allowed to release again. It is very much a possibility that this list is so big and different on both PS3/Xbox that it takes them even longer to make those incremental patches because you have to satisfy across all platforms before you release. From personal experience, multiplatform support always tacks on a month or two on top of whatever you scheduled to release versus a single-platform.
One thing to note here is that PS3/Xbox platform compliance does not specifically test for gameplay features. A game could royally suck but as long as it works, they can't mandate a fix on it. (They will flag all gameplay bugs and will warn publishers though). This is long-standing policy of development independence. Unless the "bug" or issue is outright offensive or breaks one of hundreds of compliance rules, console platforms will refrain from telling publishers how to make their game. A couple of examples:
Loot delay - annoying as hell, but unfortunately, it will be noted but can't be required by platform compliance. This is completely up to the developer / publisher to fix.
The vendor capacity bug - platform may or may not this because it requires a player to do something aggressively unusual in order to trigger it. If it is caught, it would most certainly be a conditional bug since it involves data loss. If it not caught during compliance, then they technically can't mandate it unless they are aware of it after the fact.
And so you make ad hominem attacks to make your point? So perhaps you do need a lesson in human civility.
I see two title updates since launch which is on par for 6 months time so how is that complete 'inaction'? You use words like "premium" and "defective", and how are you defining this? Like I said, if you do not like the level of quality, then don't buy from them. Personally, I think screaming at EA/BIoware for things they know about is a waste of time. They already know about these issues, and you've voice your displeasure at them.
Fine - we get that, but my point is if you're going to set a level of expectation after the fact and use it to complain how bad they are, then I assure you they won't care - end of story. Damage is already done. It seems to me if they don't patch, everyone complians, and even if they do, everyone complains about how late it is. Either way, posters will complain about it so how is that impetus for them to release a patch any sooner?
Berate me all you want because I have no stake in this. When a customer complains about my product, I listen very carefully and address it because contrary to what you may believe, I do care about my customers and they are my lifeblood. But if customers continue to whine, threaten me with lawsuits, and complain for things I have little control over, I stop listening. It's not that I don't care, it simply because there is little I can personally do to satisfy them. That is my entire point here. Have the last word, I am done posting here - thanks.
You can always vote with your wallet - what I do take a point against are the me-me-me posts on this forum. That being said, if you are not happy with the way they have executed, including the lack of patch support, feeling that they let the user community do their testing, then vote with your wallet - I really don't care what others may think of me since I don't work for EA/Bioware nor do I run their production or test teams.
Personally, I feel that their production process has misprioritized their releases and their dev pipeline is stretched too thin - if that is done in the name of cost-cutting then that is something we should all object to. At D-Day + 6 months, I wouldn't have personally let the hi-pri issues stand out this long. They're clues to me that their dev process is either broken, inefficient, or production is asleep on the wheel. It takes a lot more than just management simply telling them to not fix something given how vocal the community is for this delay.
Just because the player community made unofficial fixes to the PC side does not necessarily fix the actual core issue. More often then not, people tweaking a file here or there fixes the symptom, but leaves the problem very much alive. Things like the loot delay may seem like a simple bug to fix , but what if they were caused by engine performance? Then you're talking about a very risky bug to fix. Whether they knew about it or not during ship is irrelevant, someone likely made the decision to punt or postpone the bug and devote resources into fixing less risky issues that have a higher impact ratio.
Making a comparison between a standard game and WoW misses the point. If you had to pay a monthly subscription fee for Dragon Age, then you should expect a much higher level of support.
That said, I do not like the mentality of continuing to bugfix post-release. Some of these bugs are obvious enough that they should already have been known and set to top "do not ship with this bug" priority. (Like the loot delay.) The game would not have met Nintendo's standards. (When you fail Big N's quality control, you get a VERY nice bug list that has great detail as to exactly how they found each bug... It really helps ease the disappointment of such failure, and expedite sending the game back to their waiting list again. Yes, when you fail, you go to the back of the line when you resubmit. Nothing is assumed from the first submission. I would think Microsoft would do the same. This extra level of quality control is one the big advantages of being a console gamer, and I really don't want that to change.)
I agree - but I also think any development team, especially a stand-alone release (unlike WoW where it's a service-based game) wants to deal with sustaining engineering any more than they have to. It's too much of a sink in resources and money. But on the other hand, if you fail to address it, you face a very angry customer base that is likely to turn on you.
Regarding compliance passes. Nintendo is VERY stringent on their allowed bugs because they don't have a supportable model for patches, especially for handhelds. Once you ship a cartridge of any sort, you cannot change it in the future. So any bugs that exist on day-one remain forever.
Sony and Microsoft platforms support patching but this does not mean you should ever use it as a way to buy time for an incomplete game. In practice, this does unfortunately occur. Whether you fail or pass compliance, you are handed a list of every bug they found during compliance testing. The compliance team is not supposed to substitute for QA, they're mostly looking for security, platform breaking, and crashing issues. They typically do not look for edge cases as a pass is timeboxed to 1-2 weeks (so the vendor bug is unlikely to be found in compliance).
If PS3/Xbox compliance found it, then someone dropped the ball or made a decision to ship with a known bug. In this giant list there are usually a large set of conditional bugs before they can allowed to resubmit. If they don't fix them, they are not allowed to release again. It is very much a possibility that this list is so big and different on both PS3/Xbox that it takes them even longer to make those incremental patches because you have to satisfy across all platforms before you release. From personal experience, multiplatform support always tacks on a month or two on top of whatever you scheduled to release versus a single-platform.
One thing to note here is that PS3/Xbox platform compliance does not specifically test for gameplay features. A game could royally suck but as long as it works, they can't mandate a fix on it. (They will flag all gameplay bugs and will warn publishers though). This is long-standing policy of development independence. Unless the "bug" or issue is outright offensive or breaks one of hundreds of compliance rules, console platforms will refrain from telling publishers how to make their game. A couple of examples:
Loot delay - annoying as hell, but unfortunately, it will be noted but can't be required by platform compliance. This is completely up to the developer / publisher to fix.
The vendor capacity bug - platform may or may not this because it requires a player to do something aggressively unusual in order to trigger it. If it is caught, it would most certainly be a conditional bug since it involves data loss. If it not caught during compliance, then they technically can't mandate it unless they are aware of it after the fact.
Thank for lecturing and give us a reason to live, for showing the light at the end of the tunnel but you have missed that all this "ranting, whining, etc" is the result of the INACTION after 6 months on FIXING a CONSUMER PRODUCT that EA sells DEFECTIVE as-is at PREMIUM price.
YOU must repeat yourself, a game is a consumer product... therefore the bugs and complains that the customer do must be addressed since is what you sell, you don't sell spare parts, you don't sell books or any other software.
You can write code and come with all this tech related crap trying to lecture us about how we should behave when the product is faulty and defective... but the purchaser of this product is the one who pays your wage and keeps your company going on.
Your ignorance on how you treat your client is as big as your arrogance to came here to give us a lesson, no wonder why they keep you behind a monitor...
And so you make ad hominem attacks to make your point? So perhaps you do need a lesson in human civility.
I see two title updates since launch which is on par for 6 months time so how is that complete 'inaction'? You use words like "premium" and "defective", and how are you defining this? Like I said, if you do not like the level of quality, then don't buy from them. Personally, I think screaming at EA/BIoware for things they know about is a waste of time. They already know about these issues, and you've voice your displeasure at them.
Fine - we get that, but my point is if you're going to set a level of expectation after the fact and use it to complain how bad they are, then I assure you they won't care - end of story. Damage is already done. It seems to me if they don't patch, everyone complians, and even if they do, everyone complains about how late it is. Either way, posters will complain about it so how is that impetus for them to release a patch any sooner?
Berate me all you want because I have no stake in this. When a customer complains about my product, I listen very carefully and address it because contrary to what you may believe, I do care about my customers and they are my lifeblood. But if customers continue to whine, threaten me with lawsuits, and complain for things I have little control over, I stop listening. It's not that I don't care, it simply because there is little I can personally do to satisfy them. That is my entire point here. Have the last word, I am done posting here - thanks.
Modifié par Wibble, 10 mai 2010 - 07:59 .
#12
Posté 10 mai 2010 - 08:51
HedStr8EyesTite
-
- Members
- 269 messages
Maviarab wrote...
Why do pompous over egotistical people feel the need to keep telling US theway things work?
Insulting my intelligence is just...well...insulting....
this
#13
Posté 10 mai 2010 - 08:54
edgarcabrerauk
-
- Members
- 219 messages
Wibble wrote...
And so you make ad hominem attacks to make your point? So perhaps you do need a lesson in human civility.
I see two title updates since launch which is on par for 6 months time so how is that complete 'inaction'? You use words like "premium" and "defective", and how are you defining this? Like I said, if you do not like the level of quality, then don't buy from them. Personally, I think screaming at EA/BIoware for things they know about is a waste of time. They already know about these issues, and you've voice your displeasure at them.
Fine - we get that, but my point is if you're going to set a level of expectation after the fact and use it to complain how bad they are, then I assure you they won't care - end of story. Damage is already done. It seems to me if they don't patch, everyone complians, and even if they do, everyone complains about how late it is. Either way, posters will complain about it so how is that impetus for them to release a patch any sooner?
Berate me all you want because I have no stake in this. When a customer complains about my product, I listen very carefully and address it because contrary to what you may believe, I do care about my customers and they are my lifeblood. But if customers continue to whine, threaten me with lawsuits, and complain for things I have little control over, I stop listening. It's not that I don't care, it simply because there is little I can personally do to satisfy them. That is my entire point here. Have the last word, I am done posting here - thanks.
Well, the use of ad hominem was caused by your tacit intention of portraying yourself as a bearer of the truth, trying to insult the intelligence of the ones you think they might not understand you by the use of technical argot ( a quite common and commoner position usually related to tech people), when you mentioned "repeat after me" (sic) it is not very civil nor respectful (the significance is obvious).
I honestly think your incursion was very very unfortunate, claiming to have a objective stance when you defend the "action" of BW/EA by providing "two title updates" (sic) since such titles updates are far out of the context of this discussion... as for defective, it is related with the quantity of bugs, the product is there, it runs but it does have defects... by premium, since other console games are around the price tag of GBP20, this one is around GBP30...
Berate me all you want because I have no stake in this. When a customer complains about my product, I listen very carefully and address it because contrary to what you may believe, I do care about my customers and they are my lifeblood. But if customers continue to whine, threaten me with lawsuits, and complain for things I have little control over, I stop listening. It's not that I don't care, it simply because there is little I can personally do to satisfy them. That is my entire point here. Have the last word, I am done posting here - thanks.
Exactly, you have little control over and little knowledge of the main reason of "whining, threatening and complaining" as your entire post only explains technical processes and considerations from a developer point of view, defending EA/BW as part of the same industry, such an explanation, should be directed to your business manager... and indeed you didn't personally satisfy us... good to know your posting is done here...
Modifié par edgarcabrerauk, 10 mai 2010 - 08:57 .
#14
Posté 10 mai 2010 - 11:08
switzki
-
- Members
- 212 messages
I would be more inclined to believe that BioWare was working hard to fix show-stopping out-of-the-box defects in DA:O 360 in a timely manner if half a year hadn't already passed since the game's release. It seems pretty obvious to everyone by now that patching the game is a lower priority than, say, producing more pay-to-play content or setting up a bazaar whose currency is based on how much money you've spent on their products. We can't even get one of the 50+ moderators for this forum to sticky any of the extensively researched bug analysis/workaround threads that already exist, and EA tech support directs everyone back here for help with any DA:O 360 gameplay issues.
I'd like to give BioWare the benefit of the doubt, I really would, but after six months with no substantive title update, it's hard to look at the situation objectively and not come to the conclusion that the decision-makers consider this level of support acceptable. I happen to disagree, and while they aren't obligated to please me, neither am I obligated to give them any more of my money. Caveat emptor, and I am now very wary.
I'd like to give BioWare the benefit of the doubt, I really would, but after six months with no substantive title update, it's hard to look at the situation objectively and not come to the conclusion that the decision-makers consider this level of support acceptable. I happen to disagree, and while they aren't obligated to please me, neither am I obligated to give them any more of my money. Caveat emptor, and I am now very wary.
#15
Posté 10 mai 2010 - 11:17
Wicked 702
-
- Members
- 2 247 messages
OP: Honestly, I feel like a city worker just came in and tried to explain to me the proper procedures and steps needed to fix a water main as one is shattered and currently flooding my neighborhood.
I don't care about proper etiquette. I want the product that I paid for to work properly. And I want that within a REASONABLE time frame. Neither of which I have. The rest of your post is moot. I’m your customer, not a team member. I actually don’t owe you anything. I’ll give you respect up until the point where it is no longer warranted.
NEWS FLASH! It’s no longer warranted.
I don't care about proper etiquette. I want the product that I paid for to work properly. And I want that within a REASONABLE time frame. Neither of which I have. The rest of your post is moot. I’m your customer, not a team member. I actually don’t owe you anything. I’ll give you respect up until the point where it is no longer warranted.
NEWS FLASH! It’s no longer warranted.
#16
Posté 10 mai 2010 - 11:26
Branji
-
- Members
- 55 messages
""They have it fixed on PC, why not consoles?"
Releasing a patch on PC is much easier than a console patch. There are additional hoops they have to jump through because Sony and Microsoft have their own compliance process before they let you publish a patch. Think of them like the FDA and you're relasing a new food/drug item. Even for patches, they're treated like it's a new product (and rightfully so). This is to ensure that you didn't break the existing game or that the patch isn't going to go bad. The worst thing that could happen is to publish a broken patch in which case you have to make ANOTHER patch to fix that. And it costs money to run these concole compliance tests. I won't disclose details but it's not chump change.
Again, this may look like they don't care about consoles, but it's more of the fact that the console patching process requires more hurdles to jump through. Couple this with the desire to maintain patch fixes consistent with all 3 platforms, and that means they will have to invest a HUGE amount of time making sure that Patch X for PC = Patch X for Xbox and Patch X for PS3 as much as possible. Once they start code-spitting and the bug set is different for each platform, it's literally working on 3 different Dragon Age games at once."
--- ------ ------- -------
That is so much bull. If the process is so long, then how does the DLC get tested so freaking fast; bugs checked rapidly (supposedly checking for bugs); and approvals for the platforms are lightning fast?
Releasing a patch on PC is much easier than a console patch. There are additional hoops they have to jump through because Sony and Microsoft have their own compliance process before they let you publish a patch. Think of them like the FDA and you're relasing a new food/drug item. Even for patches, they're treated like it's a new product (and rightfully so). This is to ensure that you didn't break the existing game or that the patch isn't going to go bad. The worst thing that could happen is to publish a broken patch in which case you have to make ANOTHER patch to fix that. And it costs money to run these concole compliance tests. I won't disclose details but it's not chump change.
Again, this may look like they don't care about consoles, but it's more of the fact that the console patching process requires more hurdles to jump through. Couple this with the desire to maintain patch fixes consistent with all 3 platforms, and that means they will have to invest a HUGE amount of time making sure that Patch X for PC = Patch X for Xbox and Patch X for PS3 as much as possible. Once they start code-spitting and the bug set is different for each platform, it's literally working on 3 different Dragon Age games at once."
--- ------ ------- -------
That is so much bull. If the process is so long, then how does the DLC get tested so freaking fast; bugs checked rapidly (supposedly checking for bugs); and approvals for the platforms are lightning fast?
#17
Posté 10 mai 2010 - 11:47
ljwaves
-
- Members
- 48 messages
Wibble wrote...
"But EA knows about the bug but won't
fix it."
I can assure you that bugs involving data loss,
golden path crashing or prevnting the player from completing the game.....
- Wibble
You can not complete the game now as it is. The endings of the game are bugged beyond belief.
A small sample. *SPOILERS*
- You make Anora Queen and Allistar King. - You command Allistar to make the final blow.
Talking to the the Queen - so is Allistar always like this - like what DEAD?!?! Yes Anora he is always like that - But will he make a good King.....not DEAD!
Every ending where Allistar does not become King is bugged. He always refers to himself as king after the landsmeet on no matter what choice you made. If you a human
noble who marries Anora and has Alistair kill Loghain. The ending is
impossible to complete. Anora goes invisible and Alistair will be
standing there in king's armor. He also does the king's speech for
leading the charge to the battle of denerim instead of Anora.
Shale not in the end game for Xbox. All Mac endings except one she is all blurred out.
So sorry Wibble - yes I love the game - but the bugs are unacceptable.
Modifié par ljwaves, 10 mai 2010 - 11:48 .
#18
Posté 11 mai 2010 - 12:29
Thajocoth
-
- Members
- 102 messages
Only one ending needs to work at all for you to technically be able to complete the game. It really sucks that the ending was, like so many games' endings, so obviously rushed. At least the ending wasn't suddenly grinding in a way that feels completely contradictory to the rest of the game, which happens so often... (Assassin's Creed I and WindWaker both spring to mind.) And at least when the verismillitude is broken, it's right when you're done with the playthrough anyway.ljwaves wrote...
You can not complete the game now as it is. The endings of the game are bugged beyond belief.
Though, the existence of Awakenings complicates and invalidates half of what I just said, as the ending transfers over, and is no longer simply an ending, but a transition.
I think it's fairly probable that they pre-made some of the DLC during development, and got it approved long before it appeared for download, or at the very least, started working on it prior to releasing Dragon Age. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some odd interaction between the endings and importing to Awakenings that complicates the fix somehow.
Granted, as I've stated before, I tend to give people the benefit of doubt.
You wouldn't be here complaining if you didn't. The fact that so many who complain stay on the boards kinda shows that it's not too late to patch it. Once the board goes silent, and everyone's given up, they've run out of time. Honestly, I keep coming to make a quick check for a surprise update from the devs. My 4th playthrough isn't done yet, and I'd rather finish it with a few less bugs, you know?ljwaves wrote...
So sorry Wibble - yes I love the game -
but the bugs are unacceptable.
Modifié par Thajocoth, 11 mai 2010 - 12:35 .
#19
Posté 11 mai 2010 - 12:42
Wicked 702
-
- Members
- 2 247 messages
Actually, the fact that we are still here doesn't bode well for them. I've already pulled my support for Awakenings.....permanently. Even if they patch it up perfectly tomorrow I will NEVER purchase a new copy. Any by the way, I buy 99% of my games new because I like to support the companies. While I may (still undecided) buy a used copy off of ebay, that simply means that Bioware will not receive any further coin.
I'm here continually voicing my opinion, along with many many others, because I want them to understand that someone who has been a loyal customer for almost 15 years is about to permanently abandon them because of their pathetically shoddy product. That should scare them. A lot!
I'm here continually voicing my opinion, along with many many others, because I want them to understand that someone who has been a loyal customer for almost 15 years is about to permanently abandon them because of their pathetically shoddy product. That should scare them. A lot!
Modifié par Wicked 702, 11 mai 2010 - 12:43 .
#20
Posté 11 mai 2010 - 02:13
Thajocoth
-
- Members
- 102 messages
Most people, in general, complain about that which they like enough to want fixed. (As well as things they don't like, but cannot reasonably avoid, like taxes. This half, however, is not applicable here.) You would be the exception.
If something is disliked and avoidable, people usually turn to apathy, snd go do something they'd prefer to do instead.
If something is disliked and avoidable, people usually turn to apathy, snd go do something they'd prefer to do instead.
Modifié par Thajocoth, 11 mai 2010 - 02:14 .
