posted 08-04-99 11:54 AM ET            

So you agree that all bugs are due to yours, the customer's stupidity, and or your machine's hardware? That is the only reason there are bugs in the first place, according to Jeff's article. If they had loads of money and time, they could of course get the ones due to hardware, but then you'd have to wait twice as long for a game, meaning 16 months to 24 months. (Double the time claimed in other places by Jeff for Sid and Brian to make a game [8-12 months].)

I'm sorry Mike. That just doesn't fly by me. There are things in his article that are true, but he's glossing over a lot so that he and Firaxis has no responsibility in the slightest. It's all everyone's elses fault. While his attitudes and pet theories about 'The Internet Commune' can be a bit insulting, I could ignore that. But Jeff is effectively claiming that all bugs in all apps, whether entertainment or commercial OS's like Microsoft Windows, are nothing more than user stupidity and hardware stupidity.

Further more, he goes on to tell us that they CAN make a bug free game, but we the customers WON'T let them (we don't want to wait), it's not in our own personal interest (we need something to bitch about, as its all we do once the product is released), and Q&A is the whipping boy of everyone. Just leave them alone.

That just doesn't fly. Q&A *is* a whipping boy, but the rest of it doesn't fly. It cops out on so many levels. And its unprofessional.

Are you sure you want this kind of attitude from the head of the department in charge of making sure SMACAX, Anteitima, Civ3, and Sid3 are installable/runable/playable/uninstallable? That he just needs to rubber stamp them, as they are all bug free? The only bugs will be your stupidity, and your crappy PC with its horrible drivers? Think about it. And be honest.

posted 08-04-99 02:36 PM ET         

In his article, he describes a situation in which the developers are aware of bugs in the product, but the expense of fixing them would prevent the game from being released at all. He is obviously acknowledging that bugs exist in all software (even in his narrow definition of bugs). He is simply saying that even if such bugs did not exist, there would still be significant problems caused by the myriad system configuations out there, and no amount of extra development time would be able to solve all of these problems.

Also I'd like to read the section on "User Stupidity". I didn't notice it when I read the article. He blamed hardware and drivers for bugs, but not the users.

posted 08-04-99 03:09 PM ET            

Jeff "implied" it was bug free. He never outright stated it was bug free. The implication is due to the construction of the article so that he nods his head that there are bugs in products, then tells us how they get there; Hardware configuration and User Ignorance. Then he moves on to tell us about capitilism's profit motor driving everything. Never touches on the OTHER bug sources, Design and Implementation. You know, the stuff Q&A classicly looks to isolate so that Project and Corporate management can decide what to do versus profit hit.

re: User Misunderstanding/Stupidity
[To save thread space, I'm just going to quote the last paragraph of the associated JM dissertation.]
Jeff: My point is this: The developer cannot realistically tell a customer they haven't experienced a "bug." Other games worked on the consumer's system, and they paid money for the new one to work on their system, but it doesn't work. It is a rare person faced with this prospect who will consider the possibility that his computer may be to blame. Technical support avenues of various flavors can solve the problem, but the fact of the matter is that the customer had problems, and in their minds and the minds of whoever they discusses it with, it will be portrayed as a bug.

"...Portrayed as a bug." He has gone from saying, (paraphrased, mind you) Hardware causes the bugs. Take this common problem reported to us when we released SMAC. User X never set monitor type. Program freaks and dumps. Our programmers COULD have set up a test for this exetremely common hardware problem, but its hardware, and not worth the time in the cost analysis. [Then the above paragraph] To... User has things wrong, and needs education or to take action, but won't as they are the common masses. And now, his problem is incorrectly a 'bug' of our software. This is also known as "User Stupidity" in the business. Matters that being able to think, to Read The Freaking Manual, Read The Readme, Read The Latest Online Support Readme, Read The Latest Online Helps and Hints, yadda yadda yadda. The trick is, you have now accepted that is merely a misunderstanding or some other problem on YOUR side... the customer side.

Wow. JM really should go into politics. He'd be able to tell you that he is going to imbezzel, party, and sell secrets to the Iraqis, and noone would notice, would they? He's just that good. I wonder if he's published his techniques. I could use such skills...

Raekwon, I don't mean this as a flame. I am genuinely surprised that only insiders of one form or another (for the most part) see this piece and seem to understand it saying nasty things about them. Maybe we are working too hard?

Incomplete situations and incomplete options list are a common tactic used by trail lawyers to lead the jury down the path they want people to think. Maybe JM should have been a trial lawyer, because he seems to have lead most to what he wanted...