The biggest clue to the scepticism is that analysts/so called experts/professionals all managed to agree on something.
The biggest clue to the scepticism is that analysts/so called experts/professionals all managed to agree on something.
I find this a curious statement from somebody who claims to have played over 4000 hours. So you really spend all that time here, despite not enjoying the game? Seriously?
So i guess you have massive expertise in quality control and rolling out software? Or what do you base that statement upon?
For the 3rd time now I do not have the date of share price drawdown available. Nor do I have the inclination to work it out to determine the period analysts are referring to
The company I work for invests some $5.3 trillion yes trillion across the worlds finance markets. So I ask you, do you think we allow our software to be delivered to our customers untested?
The important part is this. And my answer is: no, i don't expect it to be delivered untested. But i also don't expect it to be delivered flawlessly. Wherever i up to now worked, there always was a rating system for found bugs and issues.
Software was delivered with the test reports along, pointing out existing problems. And usually the software, with known issues, was accepted by the customer, as long as they were rated to be of low enough impact. Indeed we players here don't get the test reports of FD. It's not a thing done in the scope of game development. But I do see that generally, while sure some bugs make it into the life game, most of them are of medium to low impact.
I mean, as an example i am sorry for all those who can't fly a Mamba because the landing gear is not retracted on the external view. But it's not something which technically makes the game unplayable. And while there was a rather small number of gamebreaking bugs published during the games lifetime, they generally shared two features: they usually were not around during the beta (so they were the unforseen result of a last minute fix) and the bugfix patch was rolled often hours, sometimes a few days later.
But yea, in the end my answer really boils down to this: despite all your credentials, your statements are along the line that tested software equals flawless software. Which just is not true and, based on the size of the game, simply can not be true.
That is fine but I am very much afraid that if you can not even identify:
then your claim does not make much sense anymore. And it is possibly outright wrong.
- the actual drop (including date or dates) you were referring to or
- the moment the forecasts you were referring to made it to the public domain,
And based on my observations here, i would say that QA generally is doing an acceptable job here. You can see the typical sign of a too small QA department. Just in like so many other software projects. But within the scope of their capabilities, they seem to generally do a good job.
I admire your patience on the topic, although I think the CMDR is intentionally evading after realising they've blundered in similar facepalm-fashion to this thread of theirs:I do undesrstand, I am starting to have my doubts you do though.
Can you please point to where in the information in those posts we can find:
Thanks
- the share price drop you referred to (which date, or dates if applicable) and
- the date the forecasts you referred to made it to the public domain
This question is always quickly dusted off because FDEV won't say. Most other popular games scream about their player retention but not for this team.
People pull out the steam charts showing a very small relative number and tout that as proof the game is popular as ever. Since no one can argue that most people don't log in via other means, its a great tool for popularity. Sits around the 8k mark and peaks to 14k or so when something happens and then drops back. Pick any hearsay you want. Also, throw in "most people play in solo" which we know is factually wrong but a great narrative.
We know from Mobius members that when they log in, the players on that group are virtually nill.
The numbers we see taking part in CG's are always very low and if you look at the number of ships docking at popular starports, also very low relative to the 3million copies sold.
Probably explains why they are focusing on other games.
Powderpanic
The Voice of Griefing
Enjoying this thread. Please carry on.
not what I claimed at all mate. I expect the bugs to be fixed as a matter of priority before! any new stuff is added. And just to add some weight to this.. The bug with the G5 materials for G1 materials was known about in beta! I had but unfortunately lost a screen shot of the actual report of it. (believe if you will)
I am no stranger to QA, testing or indeed software launches. The problem with Frontier is they never learn. Absolutely every release they have done has been awash with bugs. Some obvious, some not so much. That is indicative of a company more interested in the money than the consumer.
What I have claimed to be a failure, and I have not gone back on it, is that Frontier have spent months if not years, creating an environment (a superb environment), which basically has no great 'gaming' content. They have rewritten missions, they have rewritten exploration, they have rewritten engineers. And where are we? None of it brought any amazing new benefit to the game. Missions are still a mess. I guess what frustrates me, is I see whats coming in the Sept release and I shake my head and ask 'why'... Do we really need Arx? Do we really need to see spinny ships? Or do we need a huge content injection? I'm guessing, and I agree 'guess' that most players at this stage already have their ship kits and paint jobs. Are Frontier really expecting so many new players? That it warrants them spending so much time on displaying ships with kits rather than creating content?
That to me is the failure, and like before, as I will now, stress... This is my opinion. NMS, like it or hate it, has done so much more with 20 devs than frontier have done with 100+. I don't expect anyone to agree with my opinion. But that does not make me a bad person or an uneducated person. I do expect the opinion to be debated and not my credentials, good or bad as they may be.
Are we still going on about this?
The game will still be here next week. Let’s get on with something of consequence.
For a start, it's not my claim. It is the claim of analysts who have done the research this. I don't know what you're having trouble with?
Share price is down 8% on forecast reduced revenues.
And that would be a waste of time. What would all the other developers do, the 3D artists, the gameplay designers, the sound people, and so on do. Just sit there twiddling their thumbs while a group of people spend a year to fix most of the bugs, only to have aload more come along after the next update. It's not feaseable.not what I claimed at all mate. I expect the bugs to be fixed as a matter of priority before! any new stuff is added. And just to add some weight to this.. The bug with the G5 materials for G1 materials was known about in beta! I had but unfortunately lost a screen shot of the actual report of it. (believe if you will) There are many bugs, outstanding for over a year. And Im bet they'll be outstanding after the Sept release. And we'll find more bugs in that release too if their form is anything to go by.
Nobody said that it lacked QA. It seems to have a reasonable QA department. From what I can gather you expect the impossible.Just because something is complex, does not in any way infer a right of passage to let it lack QA. But what annoys me here is players, consumers are just willing to accept any old piece of stuff. Maybe I just expect more professionalism.
Thats a game balancing issue and nothing to do with QA.I accept your low/high impact assessments readily. However, what happens at frontier is that they continue on blindly with whatever they're doing and leave bugs sit for months or longer. Unless of course that bug allows players to earn credits too easily in which case, they're all over it with immediate attention. Look at VolleyBoom? fixed with some 7 days? Then of course they release mining which makes volley boom look like childs play credits. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
Yes every release has had bugs. Do you play any other modern day computer games? I have not come across an update for a computer game that does not contain bugs. It is standard these days. It's either we put up with it or never play any computer games. The choice is yours.I am no stranger to QA, testing or indeed software launches. The problem with Frontier is they never learn. Absolutely every release they have done has been awash with bugs. Some obvious, some not so much. That is indicative of a company more interested in the money than the consumer.
And that is your subjective opinion.What I have claimed to be a failure, and I have not gone back on it, is that Frontier have spent months if not years, creating an environment (a superb environment), which basically has no great 'gaming' content. They have rewritten missions, they have rewritten exploration, they have rewritten engineers. And where are we? None of it brought any amazing new benefit to the game. Missions are still a mess. I guess what frustrates me, is I see whats coming in the Sept release and I shake my head and ask 'why'... Do we really need Arx? Do we really need to see spinny ships? Or do we need a huge content injection? I'm guessing, and I agree 'guess' that most players at this stage already have their ship kits and paint jobs. Are Frontier really expecting so many new players? That it warrants them spending so much time on displaying ships with kits rather than creating content?
That is just stuff you pesonally don't like. As to NMS it is nothing compared to ED. I really struggle how you can compare the two, NMS is a bland game, still full of forced grind ,very basic textures, ships made up of 10 polygons, tiny planets, no real solar systems, the PG is as basic as it gets. Yes its been made by 20 people and it seriously shows.That to me is the failure, and like before, as I will now, stress... This is my opinion. NMS, like it or hate it, has done so much more with 20 devs than frontier have done with 100+. I don't expect anyone to agree with my opinion. But that does not make me a bad person or an uneducated person. I do expect the opinion to be debated and not my credentials, good or bad as they may be.
o7