I meant common game killing bugs. Obscure game-killing bugs can't be helped, but fundamentally broken games shouldn't be happening.
You live in a country where people are nice and honest, don't you? This is what will happen in Poland:Oh, the solution to this problem is quite easy: publishers should insta give back money to gamers, if their game crashes and a bug note message is sent from the actual machine it happened (they let you do this for Dragon's Age: Inquisition...you can send a report when you get a CTD on the PS4...lol). Report a game crashing bug via the dev internal system or Sony's/MS console system - insta get back money.
Oh, the solution to this problem is quite easy: publishers should insta give back money to gamers, if their game crashes and a bug note message is sent from the actual machine it happened (they let you do this for Dragon's Age: Inquisition...you can send a report when you get a CTD on the PS4...lol). Report a game crashing bug via the dev internal system or Sony's/MS console system - insta get back money.
Then your question about the definition when a bug is obscure or common is quite simple, as it is based on financial considerations: as long as it is cheaper for the publisher to pay the few users who have a crash, no problem, this number is small, the bug is obviously obscure.
But if it is a "common" bug, in the sense that it costs the publisher more money as so many people have reported crashes instead of improving the QA and investing not only a ton of money into QA, but maybe two tons of money, then we define this a common bug which should be avoided.
The good thing about Billy's plan...it would be a self-regulating process and thus would give a stable long term solution as I guess the publisher would not release a game with "common" bugs anymore
Easy! Everyone wins...everyone is happy...
We never did. Besides:We simply don't live in a world of bug free releases anymore.
I'm not sure I understand this. You're suggesting that bugs that are common are so because they were too hard to fix?It wouldn't be so "common" if it could be easily squished.
I'm not sure I understand this. You're suggesting that bugs that are common are so because they were too hard to fix?
How do you define the line between common and obscure? One gamer experiencing it in total? Five? .
I've no idea. However, we don't need to define that line when the differences either side are pretty obvious. If one in three people have their saved game wiped, that's a bug that shouldn't have made it into the game. If one in 50,000 have their saved game wiped, that's obscure. Where the threshold exists between doesn't matter when it comes to recognising that not all bugs are excusable when it comes to furnishing the buying public with working software. In broad terms, BF4 should not have released as was - that's a test case for a broken game. And there have been several big name titles that have been not just a bit awkward but plain busted. How are we supposed to strive for a better quality experience if we're going to excuse all bugs as 'possibly undetectable in testing'? That's effectively admitting that the future should be releasing broken games and fixing them after the fact when the public has tested them.How do you define the line between common and obscure?
That's effectively admitting that the future should be releasing broken games and fixing them after the fact when the public has tested them.
Problem is that... we've had enough cases B, but without the "patching" part, for 6 months at least. And I can't really see Ubisoft fixing the abysmal console performance of ACU, either. Though... I was irritated by the fact that they cancelled the season pass. The bugs, maybe... the rest, I am not so sure.
I can give you an example. Battlefield 3 if you dont use the spacebar as your jump key you cannot complete the game and the dev will not patch itWhat title are you referring to that was basically broken at release and the dev refused to patch at all?
I can give you an example. Battlefield 3 if you dont use the spacebar as your jump key you cannot complete the game and the dev will not patch it
Thats not the future, that is the present basically across consumer electronic products where an internet connection is a given. How initially broken a game can be will simply be determined by the market going forward.
I find the issue hardly to be problematic.
Solution A. Delay game 6 months and release with fewer bugs.
Solution B. Release broken game and patch over a 6 month period.
Most prefer A. I don't mind B because all it takes is a little self restraint and in 6 months you will have a game vetted by millions instead of 100s. And in most cases won't come with a $60 dollar price tag.