722 réponses à ce sujet

[Chairon de Celeste]

Siegfried.m wrote...

Bioware has only one thought. Money!!! Make ridiculous DLC for make more possible money.

s/developer/publisher

[Zy-El]

Make money? Well, yes, why does anyone go into business? Because they have nothing else worthwhile to do?



Of course, make money - how else does a company survive? I'd like to see how long you last running a business that gives everything away for free.

[Surango]

Zy-El wrote...

Make money? Well, yes, why does anyone go into business? Because they have nothing else worthwhile to do?

Of course, make money - how else does a company survive? I'd like to see how long you last running a business that gives everything away for free.

You're right there, money counts, but so does quality. I make incense and fragrance oils for sale. Do I want to make money? Of course. If the quality slips and I don't do something to fix it I'm going to lose customers. While programming code and graphical engines is a lot more difficult, the same principles apply. Half assing only causes problems later on. If you're going to do something, use the whole ass.

[Norwood06]

less dlc, more patches. Or at least patch sooner, dlc later. The output (and maybe composition) of the two teams is not equal, and it annoys.

[Zy-El]

Norwood06 wrote...
less dlc, more patches. Or at least patch sooner, dlc later. The output (and maybe composition) of the two teams is not equal, and it annoys.

The two teams are not equal in size or composition nor should they be.  Putting more people on the patch team won't make it come out any sooner - in fact, that would actually slow it down.  This is a software project - not hardware.  See Mythical Man-Month:  http://www.cs.virgin...l Man-Month.pdf

[Zy-El]

Surango wrote...

Zy-El wrote...
Make money? Well, yes, why does anyone go into business? Because they have nothing else worthwhile to do?

Of course, make money - how else does a company survive? I'd like to see how long you last running a business that gives everything away for free.

You're right there, money counts, but so does quality. I make incense and fragrance oils for sale. Do I want to make money? Of course. If the quality slips and I don't do something to fix it I'm going to lose customers. While programming code and graphical engines is a lot more difficult, the same principles apply. Half assing only causes problems later on. If you're going to do something, use the whole ass.

Well, yes, of course . . . I would have liked a "perfect" product from the outset but such is not possible otherwise, it would never be released in the first place.  The fact that Bioware even has a patch team costing probably $1,000's of $$$ every hour is proof that they are trying to fix the bugs at all. 

Not exactly the same principles.  If your product's quality slips, you only have to spend more money on better ingredients to make a better incense/frangrance oil.  Can't do that with software.  Nor can you simply hire more programmers - that would actually slow down the project.

[Ildaron]

Zy-El wrote...

Surango wrote...

Zy-El wrote...
Make money? Well, yes, why does anyone go into business? Because they have nothing else worthwhile to do?

Of course, make money - how else does a company survive? I'd like to see how long you last running a business that gives everything away for free.

You're right there, money counts, but so does quality. I make incense and fragrance oils for sale. Do I want to make money? Of course. If the quality slips and I don't do something to fix it I'm going to lose customers. While programming code and graphical engines is a lot more difficult, the same principles apply. Half assing only causes problems later on. If you're going to do something, use the whole ass.

Well, yes, of course . . . I would have liked a "perfect" product from the outset but such is not possible otherwise, it would never be released in the first place.  The fact that Bioware even has a patch team costing probably $1,000's of $$$ every hour is proof that they are trying to fix the bugs at all. 

Not exactly the same principles.  If your product's quality slips, you only have to spend more money on better ingredients to make a better incense/frangrance oil.  Can't do that with software.  Nor can you simply hire more programmers - that would actually slow down the project.

Actually that is incorrect, you see making a product is not simply mixing up ingredients it has to be done right. Same thing goes for releasing a bug free game. It has to be done correctly. Bug free games can be made, they are made, however it takes people doing the job right.

Likewise I can use the proabbly game as well. I think it proabbly costs the patching team $50 a hour to produce a patch to fix things. Throwing out a high (or a low number) does not make it the case. Hiring more programers might even work out better as diffrent people are running the same procedures in diffrent portions of the game. Or Bioware could contact the creator of the fixpack, Q&A that, release it for the PC and begin working on the PS3 as well as the Xbox 360 version. As the creator of that fixpack mentioned that it was a resume and he'd be willing to make one for Awakenings as well I'd hire proven (and quicker) results.

[Zy-El]

Ildaron wrote...
Actually that is incorrect, you see making a product is not simply mixing up ingredients it has to be done right. Same thing goes for releasing a bug free game. It has to be done correctly. Bug free games can be made, they are made, however it takes people doing the job right.

Likewise I can use the proabbly game as well. I think it proabbly costs the patching team $50 a hour to produce a patch to fix things. Throwing out a high (or a low number) does not make it the case. Hiring more programers might even work out better as diffrent people are running the same procedures in diffrent portions of the game. Or Bioware could contact the creator of the fixpack, Q&A that, release it for the PC and begin working on the PS3 as well as the Xbox 360 version. As the creator of that fixpack mentioned that it was a resume and he'd be willing to make one for Awakenings as well I'd hire proven (and quicker) results.

An IT project is not the same as mixing ingredients.  You can buy separate ingredients to make a better product; programmers are not ingredients.  One is a product, the other provides a service. 

And the principles of the Mythical Man-Month (google it if you don't know what it is) state quite clearly that adding more programmers will not result in quicker output.  Yes, a modder working on his own can produce single solutions to single problems but that same approach will not work with multiple people for multiple problems.  The complexity of the project combined with the management of those additional bodies is what bogs down a project.

[Norwood06]

Zy-El wrote...

An IT project is not the same as mixing ingredients.  You can buy separate ingredients to make a better product; programmers are not ingredients.  One is a product, the other provides a service. 

And the principles of the Mythical Man-Month (google it if you don't know what it is) state quite clearly that adding more programmers will not result in quicker output.  Yes, a modder working on his own can produce single solutions to single problems but that same approach will not work with multiple people for multiple problems.  The complexity of the project combined with the management of those additional bodies is what bogs down a project.

Your powerpoint is interesting, but merely avoids the point, which is customer dissatisfaction.  Fine - adding people will make things worse - so bioware's patchers needs better project managers or better designers.  Patches are few and far between, and, if you believe some on these boards, just replace old problems with new ones.  

Regardless of whether the internal problem is resources, staffing, deadlines, etc, its just poor PR work to be selling add-ons to a flawed product.  Its implies an indifferent customer service philosophy & erodes the goodwill of  customers.  And goodwill is important if you plan on making post-release $$ through dlc.   

unrelated, I read today that bioware is opening a tech-support call center in Ireland.  Props for sparing us India and/or east Asia!    

[13Dannyboy13]

The thing I wonder about is the resources actually being out into fixing the game itself. If they are constantly working on dlc, and in the process of making sequels to this game and ME, how much is actually being put towards fixes? It's been almost 8 months and they haven't given us a real fix for this game yet, it's very disappointing that they can't even tack on a small fix or two with the dlc patches. The only time we even hear mention of a fix in the works is when they want us to buy more dlc, then after the dlc comes out silence again.

I guess they are still selling enough dlc and other merchandise, and can afford (for now) to ignore the people upset with the game and lack of support since we are a minority, but it will come back to haunt them in the end, many people have already given up on this game simply becasue there is no communication and no real fixes in sight.

[Zy-El]

I take no credit for the Mythical Man-Month powerpoint; it's not mine. I don't deny that Bioware could do a better job in the PR department.



I guess enough people are still buying the DLC such that it is still profitable otherwise they wouldn't produce anymore, would they? Yes, it sucks if you're in the minority where the game does not work. But for the majority, it does work. When the final numbers boil down,

Bioware still make a profit because there are so many more people who will continue to buy their DA products; the people who don't buy their products don't show up on any statistics. Have you ever seen a Bioware poll that asks whether or not you'll buy their DLC after buying Origins??

[less_than_three]

Zy-El wrote...

Norwood06 wrote...
less dlc, more patches. Or at least patch sooner, dlc later. The output (and maybe composition) of the two teams is not equal, and it annoys.

The two teams are not equal in size or composition nor should they be.  Putting more people on the patch team won't make it come out any sooner - in fact, that would actually slow it down.  This is a software project - not hardware.  See Mythical Man-Month:  http://www.cs.virgin...l Man-Month.pdf

Firstly, your comments are pure speculation.
Secondly, the pdf you referenced, though well thought out has no basis.  It was written by a STUDENT.
Lastly, my experience having dealt with very large scale OSS projects as well as being a project manager for many years contradicts the "more people means less productivity" nonsense.  You just need to organize your project into parts effectively and the rest falls into place quite nicely.

With the above said, it IS surely possible to provide too many people to a segment of the overall "production line" if you will, but you can generally never have too many people overall.  Considering the number of bugs in DA v 1.03 and if it were my team, I would have put lots of resources on this to squash things as quickly as possible.  Revision Control Systems (RCS/CVS/SVN/etc) are there for these very reasons.  Having an abundance of people to track and fix bugs doesn't slow anything down, except for maybe EA pushing the latest and greatest down your throat.

Quite truthfully, it only hurts their bottom line, which IS the only motivating factor for not putting more (any?) developers on fixing the problems.

The only thing I agree with is PART of your first sentence.  "The two teams are not equal in size or composition"

The bug team (speculation) is 1 person.  A high school graduate making less than $15 an hour and is interning.  Whether or not this is true is irrelevant....just saying that this is what it feels like.

No offense with any of this...just frusterated overall. 

[Surango]

I didn't mean to start a debate over the differences between programming codes and hitting the right ratios with the most promising mixtures, my point was more the principles/ethics of the company and/or individuals themselves. If something goes wrong, you fix it. It's a simple point, but one that is true no matter the type of business.

[13Dannyboy13]

Surango wrote...

I didn't mean to start a debate over the differences between programming codes and hitting the right ratios with the most promising mixtures, my point was more the principles/ethics of the company and/or individuals themselves. If something goes wrong, you fix it. It's a simple point, but one that is true no matter the type of business.

Sadly EA doesn't see things that way, they have a bad track record for support going back years, and since they now own Bioware, the support seen so far is not really surprising. It is very disappointing to see such little support being given to what would be a great game, but with so many people still grabbing up every little dlc they release, there is simply no incentive for them to spend money to fix it.

[Zy-El]

No offense taken.

I think the problems stem from a number of causes. One of them being an immovable deadline set by marketting execs who know nothing about software development projects. As is often the case, the people setting the deadlines have not a clue how much work is involved with getting a product out the door. I've seen too many cases where QA suffered in these scenarios . . . as it appears to be the case for DA products.

[mousestalker]

I think part of my continuing frustration with the patching process is that as time goes on any future patch becomes less relevant which makes me think that it becomes ever more unlikely that the game will be patched while I have any interest in the game.

[CybAnt1]

As people have pointed out, MMOs can and do patch serious bugs within a day or two of them being detected. The point is, rapid release of patches is possible. It really depends on how much you want to prioritize doing it.



MMOs have to to prevent losing players because of them. Non-MMOs, well, they know the EULA says "as is" and they know the customer can't return it and usually has no recourse - they paid for it already and can't get their money back; the only thing that *might* happen is that they won't buy future products.



Goodwill is important for a company to maintain, it's the only reason any company does post-release patches for single player game products ... and it's why MOST do.



But the truth is, the patch release rate really depends on how aggressive they want to be about doing it and if the issue is having to deal with a large number of issues, they simply patch the 2-3 that are most serious first and quickly, and then move down the line on priority. BTW, on low-priority bugs (say Elven Boots not being there) that are not serious, game-stoppers/breakers, or major annoyances, hate to say it, but they usually never get solved at all.



Everyone romanticizes BG2 as best game eva, but it had minor unpatched bugs of that nature that were only fixed in community fixpack mods, too, and the irony there is those community mods required a lot more work as BG2 had no toolset, just people working from scratch.

[Fingolfin09]

lol nearly every week World of Warcraft is patched but i got sick of it and stopped playing cause after a while it can suck the life out of you.

[mousestalker]

At the risk of spamming the thread, here's the link to Qwinn's Fixpack. Qwinn has resolved many, many bugs all by himself for the PC version of the game. It's the one mod everyone ought to have.

[DeadJediJamie]

mousestalker wrote...

At the risk of spamming the thread, here's the link to Qwinn's Fixpack. Qwinn has resolved many, many bugs all by himself for the PC version of the game. It's the one mod everyone ought to have.

Yes, so? This fixes scripting errors not the crashes. The problems it fixes are merely secondary concerns. The game is woefully unstable for a lot of people and this patch does nothing in that regard.

[kisgempa1]

lyukamon szőr van



thanks!

[Zy-El]

I think there would have been fewer issues if they'd built the game with lowered hardware requirements. I'm playing the game on a 4-year-old PC running Windows XP. I'm playing the game with anti-alias turned off and Medium detail. On a 19-inch monitor, the game looks fine to me and I'm not suffering the major crashes are experiencing.



On the PC platform, it's particularly hard for a manufacturer to make a patch that will work for everyone since everybody's PC is unique - memory, processor, graphics card, OS, etc. Undoubtedly, one solution for one PC may not work on another. They should have scaled back the hardware requirements such that a larger majority of PC configurations would be able to satisfy - perhaps then there'd be fewer crashes.

[Patriciachr34]

I will say this in regards to pc's, since I've upgraded my system I crash maybe once or twice every two to three days and then only when I'm in the middle of a graphics intensive a melee instead of 3 - 4 times daily (playing 6-8 hours at a time).



I went from 2.4 quad w/ 8 gb ram on Vista Home and an nVidia 9400 Gt card to intel 7 processor w/ 16gb ram on windows 7 and an equivalent ATI Radeon video card. Based on my experience, configuration has a lot to do with the whole crashing problem. If this is truly the case, then Bioware can do nothing to fix these types of crash issues. And, I'm honestly not sure if Bioware can anticipate what will cause the crashing for all systems every where. There are simply too many variables.

[razerdoh]

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

-- Antoine de Saint-Exuper