10 réponses à ce sujet

[purplesunset]

I wasn't sure where to put this thread, so I'll put it in Off Topic. After patch 1.03, I see a lot of people saying things like "Thanks Bioware!" after quoting a part of the patch notes.

Seriously:

1) Aren't they already getting paid ?

2) Aren't patches supposed to fix things that weren't suppsoed to be broken in the first place ?

3) Do they actually care if they get thanked or not? see ---> number  1)


By expressing gratitude you're fostering this attitude that  doing things like  patching their own game  is a favor or something. Ummm, no, it's not.  Let's nip this in the bud, please.

[Stanley Woo]

[quote]purplesunset wrote...

I wasn't sure where to put this thread, so I'll put it in Off Topic. After patch 1.03, I see a lot of people saying things like "Thanks Bioware!" after quoting a part of the patch notes.

Seriously:

1) Aren't they already getting paid ?[/quote]
Yes, but that has nothing to do with the customer showing appreciation for what we do. Purchasing a game is an exchange of money for goods, not giving thanks of showing appreciation or enthusiasm. If anything, it's thanking your local retailer or distributor for providing you with access to the game.
[quote]2) Aren't patches supposed to fix things that weren't suppsoed to be broken in the first place ?[/quote]
Yes, and as we all know, things always go as expected and nothing ever is missed, compromised, or goes wrong. Ever.[/quote]
[quote]3) Do they actually care if they get thanked or not? see ---> number  1)[/quote]
Ultimately, no, since it's our job to develop games regardless of whether people comment on them, but it's darned nice to hear people enjoying what you do. The passion and enthusiasm of our fans is one of the reasons we have a community in the first place. It's our way of thanking the fans for supporting us. Besides, don't you enjoy it when people are nice to you for something you did?
[quote]By expressing gratitude you're fostering this attitude that  doing things like  patching their own game  is a favor or something. Ummm, no, it's not.  Let's nip this in the bud, please. [/quote]
It is a favour. We are under no obligation to provide post-release patches. I believe the EULA for most, if not all games states something to the effect of the product being released "as-is" and the software having no warranty in and of itself. I seem to remember reading that, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Any warranty included in game purchases relates directly to the physical media on which the game is printed.

You are not entitled to a game that works to your specifications or to your satisfaction, but we still work darned hard to try and make it as painless and bug-free as we can. That is something people can and do thank us for: our commitment to quality.

[Stanley Woo]

*sigh* People love taking what I say and using it to get their righteous indignation on. They jump to whatever conclusion they like, then castigate us (or me) for having stolen their puppy. I'm sure that if I expressed a desire for consumers to take responsibility for their purchasing decisions, I'd be raked over the coals for not taking responsibility as a company.



Based on the tone and the content of the posts against me, it's pretty obvious that folks are expressing their frustration and dislike of me and hoping I'll act as a lens that will focus it on the company like a big Bat-signal. How about let's try not taking my words in the worst possible way, and actually discuss things?



Patches as a "favour": perhaps the word "favour" is the catalyst here. All I meant was that developers are never obligated to provide post-release support. And yet, pretty much every developer does because it just makes sense. Some developers will provide a single patch, some provide ongoing support for years, even long after the game has stopped appearing regularly on store shelves. It is a "favour" because patches require time and resources that can't be used to develop the next product.



Technically--and for some people, this will translate to "as a money-grubbing soulless corporation, I hate you, humble paying customer"--your EULA states that you agree that your particular software product is purchased "as is". Anything over and above technical support can be considered "optional." The fact that pretty much everyone does it does not mean patches are suddenly mandatory, just as the fact that everyone speeds does not mean exceeding the speed limit is suddenly legal.



Just so, if you have a problem with something I say, by all means bring it up. I am always happy to discuss the game industry and our released games and what I think of things. I do have a bit of an issue with people disliking what I say but never talking to me about it.



And Ju-0n, if you really wish to protest against BioWare, it would be better to not buy our products at all. But next time, please leave out the ways in which you want us to die. That's highly inappropriate for our forums.



Any questions, comments, concerns, love, hate, whatever? Sound off. Y'all resurrected this thread for a reason.

[Stanley Woo]

It is harder than it looks, and that's where a lot of the disagreement comes from.



A layman looks at his game, which has bugs in it, and sees all the ways in which it fell short. Everything that "should have worked" is seen as having a default "perfect" state, and all the flaws should be easily brought back to this perfect state. It's like a pie. In its "default perfect state," it's a hot, whole pie. People see bugs as pieces taken out of the pie, or the fact it's not hot anymore, or it's been taken out of its baking tin and placed in a different container.



Software bugs aren't always as easy to deal with as people think. Continuing with that pie analogy, some things are really easy to fix. Pie's cold? We'll just warm it back up again. Ding! Simple fix and it doesn't affect anything else except the temperature of the pie. Pie's on a different plate? We'll just put it back in its original pie tin. Ding! Fixed. Again, you haven't changed the pie, it still tastes the same, it's just in a different container.



But if there's a piece taken out of the pie--not a whole slice, but a piece--it's not so easy to fix, is it? In fact, it might be impossible to simply repair the pie, since anything you do to it will have some effect on the rest of the pie because everything was all baked together.



Now, imagine some guy is balancing that pie on a 10-foot pole while doing a complicated tap routine in time with the music on top of a moving car. And this performance is being broadcast simultaneously to every country in the world on the internet! How many potential problems can you see cropping up in that scenario? That's pretty much what game development is like these days: all manner of different resources baked together in a pie with a bunch of interoperating systems choreographed into it, being broadcast on disc to different regions so people can experience it on all manner of different systems.



ANd no matter how diligent people are, no matter how careful and capable they are, no one can account for every single contingency, no one is perfect, and no battle plan survives contact with the enemy. There was a lot of, shall we say "interesting," things done wiht NWN to make it all work as well as it did.

[Stanley Woo]

Ju-0n, your outrage and bluster is very clearly bordering on the libelous, which is not permitted on our forums. I'm all right with people blowing off some steam and getting angry and frustrated, but according to our Site Rules, which you yourself actively agreed to follow when you signed up to participate in our community. If you cannot conduct yourself in a civil, professional manner, I will be forced to remove your posting privileges.

[Stanley Woo]

Tirigon wrote...
You are of course right with that, but I think that patches - at least bug-fixing patches, it´s entirely different with balancing patches - are still "mandatory" insofar as they do not add anything new but simply fix what in theory SHOULD HAVE BEEN CORRECT TO START WITH.

Programmers aren't perfect, games are complex, and we don't have infinite time to look for and fix issues. Those are the major reasons why most software is released with bugs. And it's not something you can really control after the fact. You might as well say that a person who didn't want to fail the test should have gotten 100% to start with.

Theoretically possible, but completely ignores the reality of the schedules and money involved.

If a company doesn´t wish to patch their games, it might be better to test it more thoroughly so that it doesn´t NEED patches.

Okay, then, I'll ask. how much more testing needs to be done? Keep in mind that the longer you're testing and fixing, the longer it will be before the game can be sent for certification. In the meantime, you're burning money on operating costs and getting really darned close to advertised release dates. if you miss those dates, that's millions of advertising dollars wasted. You also have other projects which need people being freed up on time, ot their schedule will get messed up.

So please, enlighten me. how much more testing is needed? An extra month? Until al the bugs are located and fixed? Or some other arbitrary length of time which doesn't eliminate your problem at all? Because I'll tell you, it's great to spend all that money to find the blockers and game-breakers, but eventually you have to release. And millions of gamers on millions of different machines will always, always find new problems that dozens of people on dozens of machines simply couldn't find or couldn't reliably reproduce.

It is not surprising that people who paid for a game are annoyed and demand a patch if there is a heavy, for some even game-breaking, bug, that should in theory have been eliminated before release.

I know that´s not always possible, but that´s why patches are important.

Absolutely, and I'm glad pretty much everyone makes them. It has to be worth all that effort, though. Stil doesn't eliminate the base game development issue of not having unlimited time or resources, or having to use fallible, mortal humans to create the game.

[Stanley Woo]

Lol, that's as good a reason as any. I like it... but promise nothing.

Also, we just did another "favour" for all y'all. And remember to tip your waitress.

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 17 mai 2010 - 08:51 .

[Stanley Woo]

Fexelea wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...
Also, we just did another "favour" for all y'all. And remember to tip your waitress.

How about broken Dragon Age on PS3? No tips for you.

<_<

Will this do?

[Stanley Woo]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...
But (and you knew there was a but, right?) the thing that really gets me (and many others) is when relatively major bugs make it to release. I don't really care if someone uses an incorrect gender pronoun in one line, or if things clip strangely and other such bugs. It is the things like the DA:O dex bug that confuse the heck out of me. That is something I think people have a right to point to and ask "Hey, what the hell happened here?" without looking like an idiot. We as gamers can only ASSUME that someone at Bioware had some sort of console output to look at instead of just assuming the game was magically working. A rather large and obvious bug like that making it to retail is a definite eyebrow raiser.

There are lots of ways of testing combat in a game which has a complex rules system--everything fro outputting all the numbers onto the screen to individual system testing to just testing things in game. This was siomply something that was missed because we didn't have hundreds of thousands of hardcore RPG rules lawyers stepping up to the plate to try and break the game. I don't know why it was missed, but I'm pretty sure it was during the frantic months before finalling when combat was being gutted and made more fun and exciting.

I'm not attacking Bioware or anything, in fact I think they are solidly in the middle of the pack when it comes to releasing buggy games and when it comes to fixing said bugs. I just wanted to point out that saying "Hell, it has to ship sometime" is as a generic and uninformitive a response as someone saying "Boware iz suk cuz dere am bugz and I am boycoting dem!"

But "it has to ship some time" is a valid reason why some bugs make it into the game. The dex bug you mention, for example, is easy to miss if you're not really paying attention to numbers, and it doesn't really break anything (except some class builds, but that's hardly game breaking). I once discovered a bug in Infinite Dungeons (one of the NWN Premium Modules) that had been in the game since the original NWN release (4 years or so). A very specific set of circumstances caused  certain inventory items to disappear or become unequippable.

No one noticed.

The bug was found by accident. Other bugs are found and filed, but they are deemd not important enough to fix during the frequent bug triages. When you get down to the wire, you have to gauge what's more important to the project: fixing X bug or making Y system better. Do you tell QA to keep sending bugs on A, or do you make them concentrate on B? That's what project managers do: decide how to finish the project and, partly, determine which bugs we can live with so we can concentrate on fixing more important stuff. And, of course, they are also fallible, mortal humans.

[Stanley Woo]

Branji wrote...

Bioware/EA didn't barely break even with their games. They made a lot of money, and of course money is your friend. Bioware/EA can (unless there was huge mismanagement) easily afford to spend a little money on making patches. As an example: let's say that Bioware/EA has a team of 10 working on patches after release. and money is set aside to pay them. Make it $75,000 each for one year. Okay, that's $750,000. That equals 15,000 boxes sold. Make it 20 workers and $1,500,000. That's 30,000 boxes. Dragons Age sold in excess of 3 million copies.

Let's play with your numbers, since they're good, round numbers. So you're saying that=, because we sold 3 million copies, we can afford to develop something which would "cost" 30,000 copies. You'd be right, except that that money doesn't go to us directly. The retailer does not ever send us a cheque.

You can't convince me that Bioware/EA can't afford to make patches. Bioware /EA has lost some fans due to the very slow patching (yet the DLC zips through approvals). If just 50,000 fans were lost, patching properly could get them back to buy more games. That's over $2,500,000 gained. Those fans should be able to bring in more than enough to pay for patching.

Define "patching properly." And can you guarantee that doing so would get back at least 50,000 fans (using your numbers again). And how would you guarantee that, considering we get lots of people saying they'll buy a copy if we do this or that but there's never a contract or any way to enforce it? Simply making up numbers to get a company to commit real dollars for made up gain doesn't usually work, I'm afraid. Besides that, I think that when numbers get high and complex enough, our understanding of how they interact becomes muddied.

[Stanley Woo]

I'm just saying there's probably more to the process than laziness, greed, or spite.