Forum Announcement, Click Here to Read More From EA_Cade.
Serious Question - Has The Internet Made Game Developers Too Lazy?
netguysteve
Posts: 470 Member
Reading through this, or any other forum for a pending release, it's not uncommon to see statements like, "Well, you know there gonna be bugs in it. Give it a few weeks for them to work them out."
It occurs to me, that it's rather absurd to assume a developer can't release a stable product. When I first started gaming back in the 80s, bugs in software that were fixed after the release usually cost the developer money. Getting a bug fix into the hands of your customer meant one of two things. One, your customer calls a tech support line, and you ship them a bug fix on a floppy, at your own expense. Two, your customer dials into a BBS system to download a fix. That may sound free, but it's not. The call was usually to a toll free number which meant that you were paying long distance charges for every minute your customer was dialed in. At 9600 baud (which was actually still high for the time period I am talking about), that could be a substantial amount of time.
Suffice it to say, the developers worked hard to deliver a quality product because they had to. Now that it's easier for them to put out bug fixes, they seem to have stopped even ATTEMPTING to release a "zero defects" product. In fact, in many cases, they release products that they absolutely KNOW has bugs and simply plan to fix it in a patch. That's a bunch of hogwash. If the development and testing teams were capable of doing their jobs, it is not impossible to release a product that runs on day one, without a laundry list of "known issues". if they are "known issues", why didn't you fix them? Do you have no pride in your work at all?
Okay. Rant over. Continue with your regularly scheduled love and/or hate threads.
It occurs to me, that it's rather absurd to assume a developer can't release a stable product. When I first started gaming back in the 80s, bugs in software that were fixed after the release usually cost the developer money. Getting a bug fix into the hands of your customer meant one of two things. One, your customer calls a tech support line, and you ship them a bug fix on a floppy, at your own expense. Two, your customer dials into a BBS system to download a fix. That may sound free, but it's not. The call was usually to a toll free number which meant that you were paying long distance charges for every minute your customer was dialed in. At 9600 baud (which was actually still high for the time period I am talking about), that could be a substantial amount of time.
Suffice it to say, the developers worked hard to deliver a quality product because they had to. Now that it's easier for them to put out bug fixes, they seem to have stopped even ATTEMPTING to release a "zero defects" product. In fact, in many cases, they release products that they absolutely KNOW has bugs and simply plan to fix it in a patch. That's a bunch of hogwash. If the development and testing teams were capable of doing their jobs, it is not impossible to release a product that runs on day one, without a laundry list of "known issues". if they are "known issues", why didn't you fix them? Do you have no pride in your work at all?
Okay. Rant over. Continue with your regularly scheduled love and/or hate threads.
"UR" is NOT a word, it's the sound stupid people make when they try to spell "You are".
0
Comments
And its spreading from PC to Consoles:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/07/15/sony-early-access-will-gamers-pay-full-price-for-u.aspx
I'm not a psychopath. I'm a high-functioning psychopath. Reaper
As publishing companies tend to push for shorter development cycles are more frequent content updates for additional revenue, "Zero Defects" policies are not popular with software publishers.
From the developer's standpoint though, it actually makes their jobs easier, this is especially true in product lines like The Sims where they know they plan to release numerous additional expansions. One reason the performance of The Sims 3 drops as you add more expansions is, indeed, the amount of data that is being handled. Another reason though is stability. If the base game is unstable, and you don't fix those issues, then you are building an expansion on a foundation that is already unstable. If that expansion has it's own stability issues, and you fail to address those, then future expansions are impacted even more heavily. Each new expansion is being added to a product which is becoming more and more unstable.
A "Zero Defects" policy corrects this. Even bugs which seem to be minor annoyances can have an impact on the game's performance. Even if they don't, they definitely have an impact on the customer's enjoyment of the product. A more enjoyable product encourages more people to continue to spend more money, which is better for everyone in the long run. It also makes horror stories about how buggy a piece of software is less common, so fewer potential customers are scared away. Again, more income to help the bottom line.
The fact of the matter is, there are several intellectual properties (The Sims included) which some people will blindly spend their money on, regardless. The publishers know this, and they take advantage of it. Until we, as customers and players, demand (with our wallets) that developers deliver stable and bug free products, they won't see the need to it.
I'm not a psychopath. I'm a high-functioning psychopath. Reaper
This is also why Sims 4 will have no story progression; they were counting on players to provide that in the initial concept of Sims Olympus.
http://simsbytheslice.wordpress.com/
In some respects, the complexity of modern systems make some types of coding easier. For example, historically, if someone wanted to draw something on the screen, the programmers had to specifically tell the computer how to draw it. Modern graphics cards (and even not so modern ones from the mid-90s) do most of this work for them. They describe a model, texture, lighting, position, velocity, and a few other things and the graphics drivers handle the specifics of how to render that.
Even the cross platform argument is a moot point. After all, The Sims, like many EA products, is being released on the PC only, with a Mac version coming at some future point. They are developing for a single platform. Now granted, they are developing for multiple operating systems (Windows 8, Windows 7, and probably Windows Vista as well). However, they don't release a product that is actually bug free on ANY of those operating systems. If the issue was an operating system difference issue, then the issue(s) would be specific to the affected operating system(s).
Now I grant you there are some issues that are due to differences in operating systems, but the bulk of the issues seen affect all platforms and operating systems. They are core issues. Since we're on the forums for The Sims, I will give you a few good examples. The problems with Story Progression in The Sims 3. The problem with the infinitely duplicating phones in The Sims 3 Showtime. Both of these were universal issues, easily reproduced, and with clear and obvious effects. Both of these have been allowed to fester. Why? And that is simply two examples out of many.
I just really wanted to stop in and say that I am really digging the discussion topic of this thread, it's a breath of fresh air to see serious discussion and an interesting topic
In fact, I dare say...
I really think the tools have made developers lazier than the internet. In the olden days, there was a whole lotta lines that had to be written perfectly and indented just so to make things work. There weren't any huge libraries of proven successful code that could be easily copied and pasted and then be edited to fit whatever the programming need. Those poor developers had to test everything because one misspelled word could set a project back indefinitely. That's how come everything was so quality, it had to be tested and proven, otherwise it wouldn't work and it could take a lifetime to figure out why.
Fast forward to now, not only do we have the internet, but we also have tools that do all the real programming and decades of code that is proven, automated and forgotten to exist. The internet and software has been streamlined by brand to the point that if a person can hack one apple device, they can hack any apple device. I view the internet as no different than another piece of software, all the hard work has basically been done. Developers no longer have to be detail-oriented or test every step of the way because most have blind faith in the code library/development tools, so the quality has dropped.
Look at the progression of the Sims and it proves that point. Sure, it looks more complex because they've updated the graphics. But they also have a huge library of proven ideas, code and top-notch tools to help them along the way, not to mention a business model that pushes for quantity over quality. The bugs have only gotten worse over time.
Like I said, I wish this was a different board. I love this topic.
Really good points. I never got past the point of writing basic on my Commodore 64 a million years ago
I'm not a psychopath. I'm a high-functioning psychopath. Reaper
The accountability of a bug has evolved - what even constitutes as a bug has evolved.
You can't brutally penalise for bugs as it will demoralise teams/individuals - some publishers probably tried it and watched it fail.
Publishers are less worried about bugs in games these days - the fear of mass refunds is reduced/pretty much non existent - especially when you take into account Steam and many high street stores simply stating they won't refund on games.
EA, via Origin, actually do offer refunds - so something isn't stacking up here - how come people don't all return their buggy games?
Which leads us to franchises and the whole business model - the constant suppy of content: DLC, expansions, items, etc, etc.
This did not happen in the old days - a game was a game - there was nothing to add to it, other than a sequel.
Another factor that contributes to the ongoing cycle is more and more third parties (modders) are fixing bugs/games themselves.
The Sims Studio are prime examples of the bug culture - they breed bugs - bugs are important to them. More than one Guru has actually commented on their internal bug lists and how they pretty much don't even have a timeline for some of them.
Why is it important to The Sims Studio? Well, they learned to add bugs with patches - to create a cycle - to create a budget.
They come up with some real gems - some people may find with TS3 that they currently cannot chat to a child once they have taught them to speak. They patched that in - it's meant to be there. Some people might claim that they can chat to their toddler just fine; however, NRaas Overwatch fixes it - but take that away and you can't chat to your toddler.
The Sims Studio take bugs beyond the norm with their habit of continually breaking premium content - they get away with it and they know they will continue to get away with it.
People on these forums no longer care - The Sims Studio can release chargeable premium content, then subsequently break it and very few people bat an eyelid at this practice.
That's were the problem lies - how many people actually pursue a refund when a premium item suddenly breaks? It's no longer fit for purpose - it's defective - it's a faulty product. If an advertised feature does not work then it is faulty.
So, the bottom line is the consumer no longer cares which has led to developers and publishers not being over-bothered - adding 3rd party modders to the mix does not help the overall incentive to fix things.
"Well, they learned to add bugs with patches - to create a cycle - to create a budget. "
They make bugs? that is something only my car repair place does.
I take my car in for a flat tire and now they tell me I need to replace this and that and will cost this.
so your saying that in order for developers (of any game) to keep their jobs they create bugs so that they can have something to fix?
From an individual point of view, how do you to stay part of a team that is running a franchise?
If you purposely break stuff, it gets added to a to-fix list - you effectively retain yourself.
With no bugs - at all - some people are surplus to requirements - who wants to be in that rocky, little, boat?
Seriously, how do you think they accidentally break stuff?
The playpen was a good example - you could put toddlers in it, you could take them out, you could interact with them in the playpen - what was broken was the skilling applied to the toddler.
They didn't break the entire object - the broke a sub-interaction.
They do it all the time.
When have you ever known TVs, cookers, fridges, etc to completely break?
They don't break them because they are global objects - premium content is owned by a percentage of people. If you break a global object - the whole world is going to scream about it on the forums - Premium content is f.odder for them.
EDIT:
Not sure why f.odder is a blacklisted word.
That's true to a point, but companies like Asypr port PC games for X-box, PS3 &4, Nintendo and Mac computers. They take the code from say Traveller's Tales (the people who program the Lego games) and port them to another platform. So really all someone like EA has to do is make the game run smoothly on a Windows OS and then have someone like Aspyr port it to the various platforms. I don't know who ported Skyrim for example to the PS3, but it runs fine.
Of course you will run into situations where there is a bug that wasn't caught (not like 80 forums pages worth of bugs for example say IP), and if it's reported quickly, there's a patch pretty darn quick. Aspyr was pretty quick to patch the Mac version of Sims 2 back in the day. Of course by the time they (Aspyr) got the code, the Windows patches had already been incorporated.
What EA needs is code proof readers to verify their coding for the Sims. Aspyr did it for Sims 2 (to a point but that's another story
No, there are still plenty of game developers and publishers that don't ship out games riddled with bugs. The problem is fans have lowered their standards.
I mean what does it say when someone says 'I will buy it anyway because I know they will patch it later.'
I wouldn't buy a car like that, a boat that might sink, a house that may fall off it's foundation, a steak dinner, a vacuum cleaner, a bed, a music cd (oops MP3 DL) a Cap/Crown for my tooth, or anything else. But it just seems EA's customers are willing to pay out a lot of money for things/games they know are not going to meet most common sense people's expectations.
So why should EA even bother, it's human nature. If you are never expected home, you don't go home on time, if you are never expected to do your very best then you don't. And EA is no different. The Sims fans don't expect a game that may have only one tiny bug in it so why should EA care to delay when so many are so willing to throw away their money and play the waiting game for it to be fixed later?