Release Dates or To Bug or Not to Bug

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  Release Dates or To Bug or Not to Bug

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Release Dates or To Bug or Not to Bug

Malichai posted 11-15-98 05:30 AM ET
A friend and myself were discussing the issues of companies meeting or exceeding first-posted release dates. We always found it humorously ironic the most of the consumers screaming that they wanted the game to be out NOW NOW NOW, were the same consumers who would then scream that the product was too buggy once it was in their hands.
We had a different take on the matter though. No matter how much playtesting is done on a piece of software, it truly isn't any substitute for consumer-wide useage. I've never had a problem receiving a product I knew would eventually be nice, after a patch or 2, because I knew that those problems would be getting fixed.
No, I'm not advocating that companies should finish up coding, then wham, ship it off for all of us to bang our heads against, but, I also think that designers can over-play-test, simply wasting time looking for bugs when time would be saved in the long run by simply shipping and letting the consumer take care of part of the problem.
Thoughts, anyone?

DJ RRebel posted 11-15-98 05:36 AM ET
Good points, but I still think a product isn't a product unless it works as advertised !!!
Jack_Schitt posted 11-15-98 06:10 AM ET
I pretty much felt that way myself, with UO... there was no way the beta test before hand could find all the bugs and exploits that were discovered (and not exposed) by the beta testers.
I ordered the charter for that game. And was happy at first. I kept waiting for every patch to fix the bigger problems, I played from october (release date) to about april of last year (starcraft got me ) I kept my account with UO alive, in the hopes it would get better, it didn't. Three months of waiting and I cancelled. Was only tempted for 5 minutes to purchase the expansion...quick trip to the fansites and buglists... I will -never- buy it (and it was only $6.95)
The UO game engine was fantastic, so many people online at once... but they gave no goals.
I acknowledge that beta testing is only as good as the testers, and it's impossible to forsee every problem.
Blah... anyway...
I expect that there will be a patch for AC before we even install our copies, simply because they will need time to burn the first CD's, and the demo (which I think will be a partial large scale beta) will show buggies.
To Bug or Not to Bug...
Don't Bug about the release date. Don't make them feel rushed.
But, bug them about some info we can sink our teeth into I personally am very curious about the settingup of multiplayer games, and am curious how they plan to make it as lagfree as possible, how to combat the cheats that the (probably patch 1.02) will take care of...
In essance, I want them to take the time needed, and toss us some bones of infomation on game play/interfaces, not on the storyline
*ramble*ramble*
it's late and I took a tranq %-)
Jack_Schitt
"You don't know me"
Octopus posted 11-15-98 01:46 PM ET
You're asking the wrong question. The real question is "with so much software design experience, how come projected release dates ALWAYS come up short?". When was the last time a game came out BEFORE it's release date? If the problem was just "these things are hard to predict", then there should be a 50-50 split on before or after. But it seems as if EVERY game is late. Why can't software designers figure out what sorts of things push their schedules out, plan for them in the beginning, and then give us an accurate release date?
I'm not trying to put down Firaxis here (every software developer has this problem), but it seems like they should know better. I'm sure that they believed their own release date for a while, which means that they couldn't possibly have properly planned out things like staffing, and resources, etc. It seems like every motivation is to figure out how long a project will REALLY take, and then it will be better for everybody.
pwholmes posted 11-17-98 01:15 AM ET
I've been a professional software developer for many years, so I have some very definite opinons on this subject.
First off, it is NOT wrong to demand a product on time and also expect that it'll work the way it should. QUALITY and TIMLINESS are not mutually exclusive. Try giving a financial package to a bank months late OR with bugs and see what kind of response you'll get. You'll probably be out a wad of cash, and maybe the subject of a lawsuit for breach of contract (as has happened to more than one person I know).
If game companies were actually accountable to their customers, these problems would go away pretty quickly. It is NOT impossible to thoroughly test & debug a product if you do it correctly. Unfortunately the prevailing opinion in the gaming public seems to be one of acceptance of poor quality control, as can be seen in the previous messages in this thread. As long we go so easy on these guys, we aren't gonna see any improvements. (BTW, this is why I cheer the UO lawsuit, but let's not digress...)
Next, Octopus asks A VERY good question: if project deadlines are so hard to estimate, why don't we see any products being released BEFORE their deadlines? The obvious answer is that each person in the product development chain, from low-level grunt to project manager to marketing exec, has the natural human tendency to overpromise a little, hoping that they can deliver on time and thus look good in the eyes of their boss/client/sexy cubemate.
A less obvious answer is that if projects ARE by some miracle done on time, developers always want to spend that extra time cramming in "just one more feature". And believe me, there is ALWAYS one more feature. Then when there's a bug in that new feature, you miss your deadline altogether.
What I think it really boils down to is, how professional are these people? IMHO, the essence of professionalism is getting the job done WELL and ON TIME. Management should be able to anticipate the human factor (e.g.,. the "overpromising" & "urge to tinker" factors mentioned above), lay down the law to their employees, come up with a reasonable release date, and MEET IT.
In short -- delayed release dates/buggy releases = poor management. A company may have amazing technical & creative people but still be very lacking in the area of management.
In Firaxis' defense, the reason for SMAC's recent delay is (reportedly) that they decided to add a significant enhancement (better graphics) to their product when it was in the final stages of development. Otherwise they probably would've made their planned Fall release.
So, to respond to the initial post: Malachi said he thought it was ironic that the "same consumers" who clamor for on-time releases are the ones who then complain if the product has bugs. I'd be curious to know what data he used to reach that unlikely conclusion, but aside from that, I'd say, so what if they ARE the same people? See above for my reasons. Using your customers as unwilling beta testers is completely, utterly unacceptable in the business world; why should it be OK in the gaming industry?
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Release Dates or To Bug or Not to Bug
Malichai	posted 11-15-98 05:30 AM ET A friend and myself were discussing the issues of companies meeting or exceeding first-posted release dates. We always found it humorously ironic the most of the consumers screaming that they wanted the game to be out NOW NOW NOW, were the same consumers who would then scream that the product was too buggy once it was in their hands. We had a different take on the matter though. No matter how much playtesting is done on a piece of software, it truly isn't any substitute for consumer-wide useage. I've never had a problem receiving a product I knew would eventually be nice, after a patch or 2, because I knew that those problems would be getting fixed. No, I'm not advocating that companies should finish up coding, then wham, ship it off for all of us to bang our heads against, but, I also think that designers can over-play-test, simply wasting time looking for bugs when time would be saved in the long run by simply shipping and letting the consumer take care of part of the problem. Thoughts, anyone?
DJ RRebel	posted 11-15-98 05:36 AM ET Good points, but I still think a product isn't a product unless it works as advertised !!!
Jack_Schitt	posted 11-15-98 06:10 AM ET I pretty much felt that way myself, with UO... there was no way the beta test before hand could find all the bugs and exploits that were discovered (and not exposed) by the beta testers. I ordered the charter for that game. And was happy at first. I kept waiting for every patch to fix the bigger problems, I played from october (release date) to about april of last year (starcraft got me ) I kept my account with UO alive, in the hopes it would get better, it didn't. Three months of waiting and I cancelled. Was only tempted for 5 minutes to purchase the expansion...quick trip to the fansites and buglists... I will -never- buy it (and it was only $6.95) The UO game engine was fantastic, so many people online at once... but they gave no goals. I acknowledge that beta testing is only as good as the testers, and it's impossible to forsee every problem. Blah... anyway... I expect that there will be a patch for AC before we even install our copies, simply because they will need time to burn the first CD's, and the demo (which I think will be a partial large scale beta) will show buggies. To Bug or Not to Bug... Don't Bug about the release date. Don't make them feel rushed. But, bug them about some info we can sink our teeth into I personally am very curious about the settingup of multiplayer games, and am curious how they plan to make it as lagfree as possible, how to combat the cheats that the (probably patch 1.02) will take care of... In essance, I want them to take the time needed, and toss us some bones of infomation on game play/interfaces, not on the storyline rambleramble* it's late and I took a tranq %-) Jack_Schitt "You don't know me"
Octopus	posted 11-15-98 01:46 PM ET You're asking the wrong question. The real question is "with so much software design experience, how come projected release dates ALWAYS come up short?". When was the last time a game came out BEFORE it's release date? If the problem was just "these things are hard to predict", then there should be a 50-50 split on before or after. But it seems as if EVERY game is late. Why can't software designers figure out what sorts of things push their schedules out, plan for them in the beginning, and then give us an accurate release date? I'm not trying to put down Firaxis here (every software developer has this problem), but it seems like they should know better. I'm sure that they believed their own release date for a while, which means that they couldn't possibly have properly planned out things like staffing, and resources, etc. It seems like every motivation is to figure out how long a project will REALLY take, and then it will be better for everybody.
pwholmes	posted 11-17-98 01:15 AM ET I've been a professional software developer for many years, so I have some very definite opinons on this subject. First off, it is NOT wrong to demand a product on time and also expect that it'll work the way it should. QUALITY and TIMLINESS are not mutually exclusive. Try giving a financial package to a bank months late OR with bugs and see what kind of response you'll get. You'll probably be out a wad of cash, and maybe the subject of a lawsuit for breach of contract (as has happened to more than one person I know). If game companies were actually accountable to their customers, these problems would go away pretty quickly. It is NOT impossible to thoroughly test & debug a product if you do it correctly. Unfortunately the prevailing opinion in the gaming public seems to be one of acceptance of poor quality control, as can be seen in the previous messages in this thread. As long we go so easy on these guys, we aren't gonna see any improvements. (BTW, this is why I cheer the UO lawsuit, but let's not digress...) Next, Octopus asks A VERY good question: if project deadlines are so hard to estimate, why don't we see any products being released BEFORE their deadlines? The obvious answer is that each person in the product development chain, from low-level grunt to project manager to marketing exec, has the natural human tendency to overpromise a little, hoping that they can deliver on time and thus look good in the eyes of their boss/client/sexy cubemate. A less obvious answer is that if projects ARE by some miracle done on time, developers always want to spend that extra time cramming in "just one more feature". And believe me, there is ALWAYS one more feature. Then when there's a bug in that new feature, you miss your deadline altogether. What I think it really boils down to is, how professional are these people? IMHO, the essence of professionalism is getting the job done WELL and ON TIME. Management should be able to anticipate the human factor (e.g.,. the "overpromising" & "urge to tinker" factors mentioned above), lay down the law to their employees, come up with a reasonable release date, and MEET IT. In short -- delayed release dates/buggy releases = poor management. A company may have amazing technical & creative people but still be very lacking in the area of management. In Firaxis' defense, the reason for SMAC's recent delay is (reportedly) that they decided to add a significant enhancement (better graphics) to their product when it was in the final stages of development. Otherwise they probably would've made their planned Fall release. So, to respond to the initial post: Malachi said he thought it was ironic that the "same consumers" who clamor for on-time releases are the ones who then complain if the product has bugs. I'd be curious to know what data he used to reach that unlikely conclusion, but aside from that, I'd say, so what if they ARE the same people? See above for my reasons. Using your customers as unwilling beta testers is completely, utterly unacceptable in the business world; why should it be OK in the gaming industry?