Does the video game industry treat us as beta testers?

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

JaFO

bugs are features too ...
Nov 5, 2000
8,408
0
0
JaFo, that difference comes down to one important thing: Software can't kill you. A bug in Black Ops might make you cry until your eyes bleed, but that bug isn't going to cause your death.

Unlike material sales (like cars, electronics, etc), software comes with no risk, does not have a manufacturing cost, and really contains no liability. Exhaustive testing for something like safety is not required, instead best effort testing takes place. Sometimes not even that is done, as seems to be the case on Blops PC, but, guess what? Nobody died.
So you're saying that the only reason to have any quality-control at all is if there is a chance it might kill/injure people ?
Maybe it's because I'm a software engineer myself, but I really can't understand why it is acceptable at all to have major/critical bugs in any software at release. Even in a best-case scenario you'll be hurting your own product and give consumers even more reason to chose 'unconvential' means of acquiring it just to be sure it is works on their system.

To claim indie developers are not having the same kinds of issues that other developers are is simply wrong. Lots of indie games have issues that get fixed through patching. If anything, indie games tend to be tested less because they can't afford the range of system configurations required to completely test issues across computer configurations (even among simply processor/video card combinations).
I wasn't claiming that Indie developers didn't have such issues.
I should have said that the ones that don't have similar issues to 'real' developers probably are just lucky or just maybe they are using proper design and planning (which is unlikely given the generic attitude towards software development for non-critical systems)

The biggest problem is that publishers find it acceptable to release games that not only have issues, but are practically completely undesirable products because of that. What is a development studio to do that can't get their publisher to sign off on two additional months of development time, and will lose $10,000 a week for not releasing on time? Eat the $80,000 or release what they have? I can tell you what I would choose.
The answer is easy : kill the features that would require the additional overhead.
There's nothing that can't be fixed by proper planning, because that demand for extra time isn't going to appear out of nowhere.
Remember you're supposed to be improving your ability to estimate your resource-requirements each and every time.
 

Sjosz

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Dec 31, 2003
3,048
0
36
Edmonton, AB
www.dregsld.com
So you're saying that the only reason to have any quality-control at all is if there is a chance it might kill/injure people ?
Maybe it's because I'm a software engineer myself, but I really can't understand why it is acceptable at all to have major/critical bugs in any software at release. Even in a best-case scenario you'll be hurting your own product and give consumers even more reason to chose 'unconvential' means of acquiring it just to be sure it is works on their system.

That is not what he is saying at all. The only reason why car companies hold back releasing their products on the market if there is a flaw in the product is because people can die if they do. This is not the case for games. (your parallel to the car industry is horribly broken)
It is usually also not the choice of the developer to release a game with bugs in it, but at some point you run out of development time for your engineers and holding back a game's release starts costing tens of thousands of dollars a day for every day you hold it back. Staying within budget is more important than not having a single issue in your product.
 
Last edited:

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
Sjosz answered your first point fine, so I'll hit the other two.
I wasn't claiming that Indie developers didn't have such issues.
I should have said that the ones that don't have similar issues to 'real' developers probably are just lucky or just maybe they are using proper design and planning (which is unlikely given the generic attitude towards software development for non-critical systems)
Alright, that may be fair enough. My point is that indie's aren't "getting it right" in general, they are mostly just "getting lucky" (part of that is just the fact that they don't have to pitch an idea before the develop it, so they can take a lot more risk).
The answer is easy : kill the features that would require the additional overhead.
There's nothing that can't be fixed by proper planning, because that demand for extra time isn't going to appear out of nowhere.
Remember you're supposed to be improving your ability to estimate your resource-requirements each and every time.
And whose saying these developers don't?

The problem is that no two development cycles go the same for a video game, which is unlike just about any other software development cycle out there. Most people get to complete the art, workout wireframes, develop to the wireframes, wait as much time as it takes to test, and then do a release. In game development, you usually don't have all the art done until right before the game goes gold, there are no wireframes just design documents, the goal you are trying to reach often seems nebulous, and there are so many moving parts that it is impossible to keep every single one of them nailed down.

So comparing game development to something like desktop application development is a fool's errand.
 

Grobut

Комиссар Гробут
Oct 27, 2004
1,822
0
0
Soviet Denmark
It is usually also not the choice of the developer to release a game with bugs in it, but at some point you run out of development time for your engineers and holding back a game's release starts costing tens of thousands of dollars a day for every day you hold it back. Staying within budget is more important than not having a single issue in your product.

It's not more important, Publishers are just forcing it to be with late-fee's and other assorted rubbish.

That attitude has to change, AAA games are only going to get more complex, not less, because that's what the consumer wants, so this is going to become an ever greater problem unless something's changed, and nobody wins if things get worse, not us gamers, not the developers, and not the publishers, remember the videogame market crash of the early 80's? Well that might very well happen again if consumer confidence is flattened by a growing trend of terrible releases.


Some kind of happy medium has to be reached here, nobody wants to see another DNF where the developer is never going to release the bloody thing, and eventually dies, but nobody wants to see releases like UT3 or the PC version of GTA4 either, because thouse sure as hell aren't good for buisness (they may scratch in some sales right now anyway, but make a trend of it, and people will definately catch on and stop buying!).

Nobody wins with a terrible release, so it's in everyones interest, including the publishers, to get the game out there in a solid and playable state, and maybe that will require a new release strategy due to the cost of AAA development, i suspect it might, but then it's high time to start thinking of new ways to make that happen, instead of beeing shortsigted and forcing the games out on the shelves in Beta stages, which will hurt the companies involved, and the industry as a whole in the long run.
 

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
Nobody wins with a terrible release, so it's in everyones interest, including the publishers, to get the game out there in a solid and playable state, and maybe that will require a new release strategy due to the cost of AAA development, i suspect it might, but then it's high time to start thinking of new ways to make that happen, instead of beeing shortsigted and forcing the games out on the shelves in Beta stages, which will hurt the companies involved, and the industry as a whole in the long run.
That may be true from your standpoint, but if a publisher starts thinking a game is going to bomb, what difference does it make WHEN they release it?

This is just the way that contract software development goes in every part of the industry. If you're late, you pay (not the person who funds you).
 

Grobut

Комиссар Гробут
Oct 27, 2004
1,822
0
0
Soviet Denmark
That may be true from your standpoint, but if a publisher starts thinking a game is going to bomb, what difference does it make WHEN they release it?

If they realize it's going to bomb regardless, then they made a big mistake a long time ago when they first handed the Dev's the contract, either the Dev's didn't have the talent to pull it off, or the game was just never a good idea to begin with, regardless, this should have been considdered before the thing got green-lighted, not after..

But if you are standing there with a potential hit on your hands, and all it needs to get there is 2 more months of polish, then i don't see how it's in the Publishers interest to flush it down the drain by releasing it too early, the Publisher and it's shareholders should be just as interested in seeing the game sell well as the Dev's are, it's money in all of their pockets, it's better reviews, more copies sold on release day, and more copies that continue to sell long after it's initial release.


It is also future proofing, what does the publisher gain from sinking what could have been a lucrative franchise, just because the game ran a bit late? or sinking good development houses, who the customers will now shun because of some terrible rushed releases, all because they ran a little late? an early release can really rape what could have been a great thing for all parties involved.


And again, there's the question of the industry as a whole, if the big publishers make a habit of snubbing big releases in this way, then the consumers will eventually wise up to it, and stop buying their games at full price on release day, or not buy them at all, perhabs even pirate them, how exactly will that be good for their buisness?

That's allready happening mind you, a lot of people like myself have stopped buying anything coming from big publishers on release day, we wait for the user reviews to start hitting the net, and often for the prices to go down unless the game gets all happy smiles from anyone who's played it (and it seems our numbers are growing, atleast that's the impression i get), and others, well, they cite this as the main reason why they pirate games, that they want to see if the thing will even run on their box or be worth anything before they put down any cash, take that for what you will.


I just don't see how it makes any buisness sense to **** out a lump of coal that nobody wants, just out of principle because an agreed upon deadline was not met, when they could have released a gold-bar that would have netted everyone involved a lot more money, just by beeing a little more flexible and letting the Dev's apply the needed last minute polish.

I do see how they can be forced to cut their losses if they have a S.T.A.L.K.E.R. on their hands, and it's obvious the bloody thing will never get released if the Dev's get their way.. yeah, that i can understand, but that's usually not the case.
 

Sjosz

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Dec 31, 2003
3,048
0
36
Edmonton, AB
www.dregsld.com
I just don't see how it makes any buisness sense to **** out a lump of coal that nobody wants, just out of principle because an agreed upon deadline was not met, when they could have released a gold-bar that would have netted everyone involved a lot more money, just by beeing a little more flexible and letting the Dev's apply the needed last minute polish.

I do see how they can be forced to cut their losses if they have a S.T.A.L.K.E.R. on their hands, and it's obvious the bloody thing will never get released if the Dev's get their way.. yeah, that i can understand, but that's usually not the case.

There are responsibilities for companies that are on the stock market, you know. Investors want results with their investments, and setting something to release in one quarter of a fiscal year but then pushing it out to the next can have consequences to the investor relationships and the stock value.

You can say a lot about 'should have' and 'could have' when it comes to greenlighting things, but there is no way to account for everything that will happen in a development cycle even if you've got everything figured out when something gets greenlit.
 

Grobut

Комиссар Гробут
Oct 27, 2004
1,822
0
0
Soviet Denmark
There are responsibilities for companies that are on the stock market, you know. Investors want results with their investments, and setting something to release in one quarter of a fiscal year but then pushing it out to the next can have consequences to the investor relationships and the stock value.

I refuse to belive that can't be solved somehow, it will often be in the investors best interest to give it a little more time, and there must be a way to make them understand that.
 

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
I refuse to belive that can't be solved somehow, it will often be in the investors best interest to give it a little more time, and there must be a way to make them understand that.
There is no telling what the reasons are. I feel like if a game is a potential hit and only needs two more months of polish, it doesn't really matter if they release it two months earlier.

If, like UT3, it needs another YEAR of polish, well...