Now you've changed your original statement. No one is claiming that end users aren't involved in testing, but by the time it goes to users, you're handing off code that at least functions enough to be considered to have met requirements. It's still been tested MANY, MANY, MANY times by devs during development and has had several QC passes. End users will always be a fundamental part of finding bugs, but no (professional) dev has ever slapped down some code, assumed it's probably going to work and fired it off to users without any sort of dev testing and at least a couple of passes through QC. You'll also note that this patch had no alpha or beta; it was pushed out to production, indicating that it was considered complete - yet it failed to meet the basic requirements indicated in the patch notes; this is not a minor bug where the yields are slightly too high or there's some weird bug that causes yields to double; the code they wrote and pushed to production is fundamentally BROKEN enough that it has ground a big part of the game to a halt. And yet... as I pointed out before, it took mere hours for miners on Reddit to clearly demonstrate, with hard evidence, how badly the patch is broken, so this clearly points to a serious problem with the way the dev teams are testing their code. It's the point of ineptitude that something THIS badly broken would ever be pushed to QC let alone out to end-users.
You're right, gaming software is not the same as business software, but there are many things in common when dealing with large, complex codebases that have complex underlying models. For example, my team has a massive Azure automation lab that costs, even with price reductions from Microsoft due to long-term contracts, many tens of thousands a month, we have dedicated automation developers, and our sprints have time built in purely for developer unit-testing and run-testing in addition to QC testing. On top of that, we have on-premises labs containing virtual machines running simulators for proprietary devices not supported in Azure which also costs several thousand a month in running costs, hardware fees and licencing. What we are doing is not unusual, it's pretty standard practice.
). Painite costs up to 790 000 in Colony and Bubble.
