- Joined
- April 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,459
Okay, not those exact words, but they say: "New Video Games Shouldn't Be So Broken"
http://kotaku.com/new-video-games-shouldnt-be-so-broken-1658570535
Games always had bugs and can't be tested thoroughly to weed out every single possible bug prior to the release. It's the reality and anyone who thinks it's possible to make a bug free (not talking about phonescams!) game is too optimistic.
While publishers don't have any problem to invest $100 millions in marketing, seems that lately (started with Bethesda's flagship game that gave birth to walking simulator MMO) publishers refuse to pay a dime for betatesting and QA is probably instructed to ignore bugs and say only if some game feature is fun.
In some cases a huge amount of bugs that remained in the release version is understandable, take Wasteland 2 for example.
But InXile didn't leave it at that but are still on patchpolishing the game.
In other cases, where it's not a small dev studio behind the product, it tends to look unbelievable some issues passed QA. How otherwise to explain AC:Unity problems?
http://kotaku.com/assassins-creed-unity-just-doesnt-run-very-well-on-ps-1657617530
Or EA's Sims 4… I know noone except me here plays it, but it's enourmous amount of bugs is unbelievable, it doesn't feel like it had a betatest phase at all.
http://answers.ea.com/t5/The-Sims-4...ST-Compiled-list-of-Bugs/m-p/3445209#U3445209
Is it just my prejudice or the bigger publisher is, more bugs are present in the released game and are less likely to be patched fast?
As an audience and customers who expect a working product we paid for, can we do anything about that?
http://kotaku.com/new-video-games-shouldnt-be-so-broken-1658570535
Games always had bugs and can't be tested thoroughly to weed out every single possible bug prior to the release. It's the reality and anyone who thinks it's possible to make a bug free (not talking about phonescams!) game is too optimistic.
While publishers don't have any problem to invest $100 millions in marketing, seems that lately (started with Bethesda's flagship game that gave birth to walking simulator MMO) publishers refuse to pay a dime for betatesting and QA is probably instructed to ignore bugs and say only if some game feature is fun.
In some cases a huge amount of bugs that remained in the release version is understandable, take Wasteland 2 for example.
But InXile didn't leave it at that but are still on patchpolishing the game.
In other cases, where it's not a small dev studio behind the product, it tends to look unbelievable some issues passed QA. How otherwise to explain AC:Unity problems?
http://kotaku.com/assassins-creed-unity-just-doesnt-run-very-well-on-ps-1657617530
Or EA's Sims 4… I know noone except me here plays it, but it's enourmous amount of bugs is unbelievable, it doesn't feel like it had a betatest phase at all.
http://answers.ea.com/t5/The-Sims-4...ST-Compiled-list-of-Bugs/m-p/3445209#U3445209
Is it just my prejudice or the bigger publisher is, more bugs are present in the released game and are less likely to be patched fast?
As an audience and customers who expect a working product we paid for, can we do anything about that?
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,459