New patch announcement at .com

[TheDuck]

Thank you for your most informative and interesting post, bach01. Being an entrepreneur myself, I know well how important and sensitive the investment decisions can be, and how much it depends on them. Not being a programmer myself, I cannot possibly make any appraisal on how long this testing was actually conducted before the game was released.

The point is, the average user doesn’t care, and rightly so. If you have lurked these forums before, then you might have been here while we had that notorious “historical” debate. I was one of the rare people who has defended CA and their vast quantity of “unhistorical, fantasy” units. Today, I wished they had inserted twice as much to compensate for the small amount of available unit types to some factions.

This I write to stress that I am not a regular CA basher, and that I have supported them for a long time, wherever and however I could. Because this what I am about to say might easily be misinterpreted as CA bashing. It isn’t. These are plain facts.

Fact is; the regular custom doesn’t care and should by no means care for the costs and amount of time the developer takes to develop and properly test a game. If you and I engage in a consensual agreement, a contract where I oblige myself to build you a house, I can’t leave out some important segments like doors and proper ceramics just because it reduces my costs. I know, this is a contract, a casual gamer has none with CA, this was just an example. The point is, you shouldn’t care about my costs, I can have a lot of them or just minor ones, you want to see the job done. And I must deliver.

CA, in my humble opinion, didn’t deliver. The game is full of bugs, and friendly fire is definitely something they should have noticed right away; I used Greek phalanx and archers to counter a Roman attack, and I have suffered massive casualties from my own archers. It gets even more annoying when you send your archers to shoot down some non-missile units and then actually inflict a good share of damage on your own troops. This is one obvious bug, and suicidal generals are just alike. The inability to form proper formations and walk/run with your entire army is ridiculous, some will walk, some will run. No one can possibly tell me that it takes 7000 working hours to notice this!?

And don’t even get me started on the MP part… Failed to connect to host? No cheat protection? Lag ad infinituum?!? I don’t even need to go to those unpopular decisions like limiting game to 3vs3 players.

In short, the developer must ensure a good, playable game. Long away from bashing CA mindlessly, but I don’t care how much it takes them to make & test the game. I want a good product, for which I have paid good money. That’s it. I also write for a PC gaming magazine, reviewing games. I can’t tell people things like “oh, well, this game is loaded with bugs, but you shouldn’t object, don’t you know how much time gets wasted on testing the game?!? Don’t be so ungrateful!”

So, bach01, I thank you sincerely for your time and a better insight in the software process, but it changes nothing. Bugs still stay, and most definitely no one will ignore them with the warm feeling that CA and Activision has saved themselves 100.000 dollars on the production phase. Mind me, I addressed most obvious bugs. The customers, among them especially the old veteran TW elite, deserved a game that will be a t least a notch better then its predecessors, Shogun and Medieval. I have played the two games for months and years, while I have stopped playing Rome for more than a month now. I am not angry with CA; I am just incalculably saddened with this development.

I’m just plain sad, that’s all.

Now I'll blow everyone's mind as a software developer. I speak as an architect who is technical leader of a team that creates high performance software for financial services.

There have been two disturbing trends in modern software development.

The first is the 'glorification of youth'. In the last 21 years, especially in the entertainment industry, youth has been generally glorified over experience, much to the detriment of the software engineering function. There are certain things that you learn by living with and fixing your mistakes that you simply do not learn in school. I've been in the position of training many many engineers straight out of school.

Most folks out of college are big on theory and very very short on practice. And by practice I'll be VERY specific. Building software in a way that helps ensure quality requires a disciplined approach. Ideally you look at what you need to create, break that down into pieces, define those pieces well.. build them separately and test them individually, then test them in 'integrated groups', then test them when the entire mess comes together. But the statements made above by bach01 on risk for test areas apply equally to a software developers job. As a software developer you simply do not have the luxury of unit testing every single line of code you write. You invest where you have the most risk and take care not to disturb that which you know already works.

I've met programmers with 5-10 years of experience who still make very fundamental mistakes regarding ensuring future quality. One example from the past 2 months:

The software I work on has approximately 50,000 lines of code (much of it tested from a previous release, about 10,000 new). We caught this programmer making extensive changes to pre-existing code simply to reformat it. Although this may appear innocent at first, sometimes accidentally typing a character may not cause code to break during compile, but may induce a logic error. These types of simple situations with potentially horrendous results are very very typical for youthful programmers. Youth is worshipped in the entertainment development community, to the detriment of quality and speed of creation. I agree that youthful programmers tend to be creative, but creativity is not isolated to the young (many MANY old composers, architects, choreographers, etc.). And the hiring philosophy of many companies (not just game companies) tends to prefer youth and previous experience in a specific field to tried and true capabilities as an experienced engineer. This ignores a very important detail: An inexperienced programmer that has prior experience may indeed not have to learn (be trained) on a technology he is working on (say directX). So you've saved potentially 1-2 months of training by hiring him. But if that same programmer makes engineering mistakes that make your 1 year schedule 2 years (or worse), what have you traded away??

Which brings me to point two... Engineering discipline is not well understood amongst the majority of software engineers working today. For as many times as I've seen good engineering practice, I've seen 5x as much lack of such practice. Every programmer I've interacted with in the last 8 years, with ONE exception did not understand the basics of top-down design and how to apply that to the creation of programs that work. Given the typical amount of training a normal programmer goes through before getting his first job, the lack of that basic skill is abhorrent.. and it can have catastrophic consequences to time through a schedule.

If a programmer is 'writing code to prove a concept' or work something out while actually trying to build a working/releasable program, what happens if his entire idea just doesn't work out? Frequently in those circumstance some or most of the code must be rewritten. And what is the most expensive thing you do as a programmer? Write code! The more we understand things ahead of time, the better we write code with less errors. But so few programmers actually understand this!

Given what I see day to day, it gives me joy when I see consistently high quality products, because I know what a rare thing it is for a company to employ engineers that are both disciplined and experienced. I can only point to a few game companies that shows that consistent ability to deliver quickly, and with high quality. The names that come to mind:

Blizzard
Bioware
Ensemble

Quality, consistent delivery, excellence in product.

Make no mistake, go there and you'll see disciplined/experienced engineers, excellent testing managers, and producers that understand enough about engineering to guide the engineers without jerking them around.

Ensemble did a complete technology rewrite, a completely new game, and released the entire thing and just a few years. This is amazing give how much they had to do, how much had to be coordinated, and the inherent quality risks associated.

CA is experiencing the difficulties I expect for a 'normal organization'. So far their track record of deliverying customer satisfaction through patches has done them credit, and I expect more in the future. I can say that STW and MTW are very stable predictable products (post patches). And I've played em to death. RTW is a typical first release for an average engineering organization. The design (IMO) is inspired.. but the engineering is average. Based on past experience, they will stand by their product and fix things up reasonably well. The issue is whether we as customers are willing to deal with the quality issues whilst CA fixes them. I for one vote an big THUMBS UP. As one poster said, there are lots of games. I don't mind waiting to get a patch for things to work better, I can play other games while I'm waiting. The great game behind the slightly flawed code will only be better once things are fixed. And for only $40, how can I argue that good quality in the end is a bad thing?

[Red Harvest]

*climbs onto soap box*

RH, with all due respect, I don't think you and I can tell how many lines of code anything in the RTW engine takes. I'm a very senior software developer who works a lot with Product Managers helping define functionality and products. It can be surprising how simple things can be complex when the entire design is taken into consideration. I can, from a casual perspective, imagine a design for a game.. but because I've never actually done one soup to nuts, I could be way off regarding the hidden complexities and how something which might look very simple is actually not so simple at all.

*steps down off soap box*

I'm not interested in a p*****g contest but I've done software development as well, and I generally had a decent idea of how reasonable or unreasonable a change might be. I'm not concerned about the precise number of lines of code (who cares?) but rather the difficulty of the task. Following my instincts has worked well in the past, I'll stick with them, thank you very much. A lot of these problems have been solved before by CA. I would be shocked and disappointed if they could not be repeated. Look at how many simple sign error type problems are already present in this release of RTW. Those are very easy fixes.

[*Ringo*]

Hand bags at ten paces???

[eadingas]

I agree with the sign typos issue. This is not a matter of code complexity, just a matter of not checking things thoroughly enough. With bugs like that coming through to public release, the whole gaming community becomes a community of beta-testers who don't get paid for their job (quite the reverse, rather). It took us what, a month or so to find these bugs, and quickly release a mod fix that set the things the way they should? Why wasn't this caught by the testers and quickly fixed by the devs themselves?

[Butcher]

I for one vote an big THUMBS UP.

What, you want them to be killed in the arena?

[Kraxis]

What, you want them to be killed in the arena?

Nah, that was the flat thumbs. Like if you cross it over your throat.

[UglyandHasty]

middle of january ? I guess they put more peoples working on the add-on, add-on that will really fix the problems, than peoples who work on the patch. Déja-vu !

[TheDuck]

I'm not interested in a p*****g contest but I've done software development as well, and I generally had a decent idea of how reasonable or unreasonable a change might be. I'm not concerned about the precise number of lines of code (who cares?) but rather the difficulty of the task. Following my instincts has worked well in the past, I'll stick with them, thank you very much. A lot of these problems have been solved before by CA. I would be shocked and disappointed if they could not be repeated. Look at how many simple sign error type problems are already present in this release of RTW. Those are very easy fixes.

And I'll refer to my missive above. Part of the discipline of a good engineering organization is good processes that provide feedback on what is fixed, and where. The organization I work in currently has poor processes for those things, with the unfortunate consequence that code bugs can be propogated across different release levels. Since in my job I'm much nearer the lower rung than the upper (very large company), and since upper level management controls such things, my chances of changing things to get better quality control over our releases is small, but locally I've had some effect on these things.

The good part about CA is that its a small company. The bad part is that its technical management must not be tracking such things, otherwise you wouldn't have bug migration such as you have (rightly) observed in the current release.

I've heard too many people in the past say that 'it must be easy'. After 21 years I've learned that those statements rarely track to truth. Hence my comment to you. I believe that good disciplined engineering and the processes for guaranteeing quality in it is one of the most difficult jobs you can have. So many things can go wrong.. and only experience will get you out of 90% of the associated issues.

Again, and in the positive for CA.. they've got a track record of 'making things right'. That is what is important to me, and why I bought RTW, knowing full well the first release would be buggy.

And, I've not 'done software engineering'. I 'do' software engineering, and have been front line development for 21 years. I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly. Its easy to think you understand how software development really works. I meet programmers that think this everyday. My job in the last 5 years has been to correct those folks on what they think they know vs. what reality dishes out. That difference is between a new programmer who tries to create good code, and an trained engineer that knows he will create poor code and plans to catch that lack of quality through good processes.

[TheDuck]

Nah, that was the flat thumbs. Like if you cross it over your throat.

[Razor1952]

Dear me, what a lot of talk.

CA has already succeeded big time judged purely by the sheer weight of posts at the various fan sites.

I think CA will come through with the goods as it has in the past.

If not then I guess "gasp" there's always microsoft games.

[Red Harvest]

And, I've not 'done software engineering'. I 'do' software engineering, and have been front line development for 21 years.

That's nice...but it doesn't make you omniscient and the rest of us barbarians either, especially since you don't know what level of experience many of us have. Before you went into this long 'missive' you were telling me how I couldn't have any idea what it takes to fix some of these things. I'm going to spell out my response more clearly: that's baloney. Write another 20 pages if you like, but I don't see the relevance of a general discussion of programming styles and developer strategic planning.

And I'm not actually upset with CA over RTW. I think they did a very good job of getting a stable game out the door, despite all the new features and the new 3d engine and strategic map. However, it is apparent that a number of things were left partly finished in an effort to ship, and there is substantial work left to do to get to a final product. My focus has been on exploring the more obvious short comings and things that didn't get ported that should have. Why? Because as anyone with 21 years of software development experience should know, CA only has a limited time to patch before moving to the next project. So strike while the iron is hot. Commenting after the final patch and asking for changes...now that is spitting in the wind.

Weren't you telling us we shouldn't expect changes in the AI when CA is telling us there will be changes? If they don't apply some fixes to the AI then the patch is only going to be a small adjustment and come up short. Modding can work around/with the AI to a degree, but it can't fix it. We've been through this with other parts of the TW series.

[TheDuck]

That's nice...but it doesn't make you omniscient and the rest of us barbarians either, especially since you don't know what level of experience many of us have. Before you went into this long 'missive' you were telling me how I couldn't have any idea what it takes to fix some of these things. I'm going to spell out my response more clearly: that's baloney. Write another 20 pages if you like, but I don't see the relevance of a general discussion of programming styles and developer strategic planning.

And I'm not actually upset with CA over RTW. I think they did a very good job of getting a stable game out the door, despite all the new features and the new 3d engine and strategic map. However, it is apparent that a number of things were left partly finished in an effort to ship, and there is substantial work left to do to get to a final product. My focus has been on exploring the more obvious short comings and things that didn't get ported that should have. Why? Because as anyone with 21 years of software development experience should know, CA only has a limited time to patch before moving to the next project. So strike while the iron is hot. Commenting after the final patch and asking for changes...now that is spitting in the wind.

Weren't you telling us we shouldn't expect changes in the AI when CA is telling us there will be changes? If they don't apply some fixes to the AI then the patch is only going to be a small adjustment and come up short. Modding can work around/with the AI to a degree, but it can't fix it. We've been through this with other parts of the TW series.

I've now seen the message from CA, and they are saying AI.. so I'm a crossing my fingers (but not hoping real hard at this point..). Minor changes would be happy-happy-joy-joy to me, major changes would cause ecstasy but I'm not gonna get my hopes up.

Secondly I didn't say you were barbarians, and didn't mean to imply as much. I'm also not omniscient. I specifically reacting to statements like 'that can't be that complicated'. I've heard it way too much in the past from folks that should know a whole lot better (and are not 'fresh graduates either!). And you'll see above that I said that you and I don't know how complex it is, so how is that making myself omniscient?? Please read my responses closely.

And I'm glad your not upset! That makes two of us.

Finally, you have indeed made positive (and copious) contributions on this board, and if my comments seemed to imply otherwise, that was certainly not my intention.

There are many many reasons why bugs leave the doors of software companies. Some make no sense to folks that don't write software for a living, and some don't make sense to me (knowing what I know). My total intention in writing the above was to give folks a perspective on how difficult it is to write quality software and get is shipped on time with low bug count (just as bach was trying to do).

You are right, I do not know the experience level of folks on this board.. nor do I assume such. I had included you with me in my statement.. I don't think I can personally can make any of the judgements about code complexity.. I'm sorry that I included you in that.. so instead I'll amend my statement:

I personally can't know how complex any of the fixes are CA missed in the first release.. I would just be guessing.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.. and please know that I harbor no ill will at all. You've made great contributions on this board (and some directed at me) and I utterly respect that, and you.

[Locklear]

...the patch is extensive in what it addresses and this includes battle map AI, campaign AI...

I agree in principle with TheDuck in that hardcoded AI is an extremely difficult and comprehensive thing to change with a mere patch, however. I suspect (although I hope I'm wrong) that the fixes will involve editing of the AI scripts, along the lines of what the Realism mods have done.

[Bartman]

Yet another developer throwing in his 2 cents here.....

As has been mentioned, QA costs money, and bugfixing costs money.

The devs want to make a great game, but the beancounters and the top management don't care about making a great game. They care about making cash.

From my personal experience, the decisions on bug fixing come down to three things:

1) How hard is it to fix? (How much will it cost to fix the bug?)
2) How many people will be pissed if it doesn't get fixed?
3) Will those people be angry enough to ask for a refund, or not buy new products? (How much will it cost if it doesn't get fixed?)

CA certainly has a HUGE database full of many, many bugs in this game, most of which will never get fixed. That's just the way it goes. One big strain between QA and developers in most organizations I've worked in is that very few of the bugs QA finds ever get fixed. (QA guys tend to get really touchy about spending countless hours finding a truckload of bugs, only to have most or all of them be ignored)

Unless you are angry enough to vote with your wallet, CA might care, but Activision won't.

[TheDuck]

Yet another developer throwing in his 2 cents here.....

As has been mentioned, QA costs money, and bugfixing costs money.

The devs want to make a great game, but the beancounters and the top management don't care about making a great game. They care about making cash.

From my personal experience, the decisions on bug fixing come down to three things:

1) How hard is it to fix? (How much will it cost to fix the bug?)
2) How many people will be pissed if it doesn't get fixed?
3) Will those people be angry enough to ask for a refund, or not buy new products? (How much will it cost if it doesn't get fixed?)

CA certainly has a HUGE database full of many, many bugs in this game, most of which will never get fixed. That's just the way it goes. One big strain between QA and developers in most organizations I've worked in is that very few of the bugs QA finds ever get fixed. (QA guys tend to get really touchy about spending countless hours finding a truckload of bugs, only to have most or all of them be ignored)

Unless you are angry enough to vote with your wallet, CA might care, but Activision won't.

This is sooo true. Quality level is defined by what customers find acceptable.

[Kraxis]

With all that in mind, I'm pretty certain that the Strategic AI has been made perhaps more aggressive, and less likely to stroll around with its leaders, even merge its many small armies.
The battlefield AI will most likely only have the suicidal tendencies removed, so that reinforcements actually are a boost to you. But a brighter AI doesn't seem to be a likely change.

[Red Harvest]

The battlefield AI will most likely only have the suicidal tendencies removed, so that reinforcements actually are a boost to you. But a brighter AI doesn't seem to be a likely change.

I suspect that they can do a lot to improve the battlefield AI with a few specific improvements, rather than overall rework. Obviously, fixing suicidal generals/reinforcements is a good start from the computer and human side. Fixing friendly fire will improve the human side of managing the game as well.

I think there are a few other things that might be addressed that could do a lot without completely rebuilding the AI.
1. Having the AI defend its high ground. Right now if it is on the hill and you are in a valley it will let you march up parallel to it and past it. So you end up on equal or even higher ground. Then it might even turn its army so that it is facing up hill at you. Surely part of the positional routine could be made to march in front of such a flanking move and fight from the high ground.
2. Improving the plaza defense by the AI so that it won't stand there taking a hail of missiles without attempting to go down fighting.
3. Any time the AI just stands there taking missile fire without engaging.
4. Having the AI use phalanx units in a long lines and doing a march through on offense, or holding a line or arc on defense--admittedly this is a bit higher level AI, but it is necessary if the AI is going to put up a fight with phalanx armies.
5. On siege maps, the AI should do a better job of keeping its army out of fixed missile defense range except when actually engaged in melee.

Slowing down the kill rates and reducing the offensive bonuses while adding some defensive ones could allow the AI to hang on much better when it has superior armies. Right now it can be steam rolled even when it has superior troops. Slow down the action a bit and steam rolling is not so easy.

Reducing archery and cavalry effectiveness (and improving anti-cav defense for non-phalanx spears) would give the AI a better chance to mix it up in melee, thereby increasing the level of casualties it inflicts. Right now a human can do great damage with a single unit or two of elite archers--wrecking the AI before melee even starts. And with cav the human can easily destroy end units with out fear of getting bogged down long enough for help to arrive for the AI units.

Introducing some penalties for unit stacking. Both the human and the AI are rewarded for the "rolling ball" of stacked troops charging through unit after unit and destroying each rapidly. We do this with cav and infantry and even elephants (in fact elephants plus cav are very effective at this which is very odd.) Units should become considerably less effective and vulnerable is such situations because they are disordered mobs.

[HarunTaiwan]

Interesting posts all around.

I think the Entrepreneur is correct: the consumer should not care about the travails and difficulty of the developers.

Just imagine the screeching from programmers when they picked up their new car and found it had some dents and couldn't go faster than 50 MPH.

"Oh, yeah, that's a bitch but don't worry, we're thinking about fixing that and will get back to you in a few months. I guess our engineering budget wasn't enought to actually drive the car around a bit."

If the developers had to physically send out new CD-Roms to everyone, they would certainly have delayed release and fixed the obvious stuff...

If I am wrong, I will let my QC staff know that they can stop giving a rats ass about product defects and just let the consumer figure something out.

[Bartman]

Interesting posts all around.
If the developers had to physically send out new CD-Roms to everyone, they would certainly have delayed release and fixed the obvious stuff...

I'm in full agreement here.... The defect rate is much, much higher in PC games than it is in console games. (Having a single hardware platform to code to does help with the console games, but doesn't explain the huge difference in quality levels.)

The PC software industry has grown used to the idea that customers will put up with a defective product if they know a patch will be forthcoming. And as the Duck said, "Quality level is defined by what customers find acceptable."

We continue to buy prematurely released software, so companies continue to sell prematurely released software. The reason auto makers don't do it is because we wouldn't put up with it.

[Kraxis]

The reason auto makers don't do it is because we wouldn't put up with it.

More likely because a car costs up to 1000 times that of a game. And it has been developed by thousands of people rather than less than 100.
So I guess it is up to us. Do we want games that cost 100$+ or do we want to wait for patches? I think I know what the general answer will be.

[Jambo]

I'm in full agreement here.... The defect rate is much, much higher in PC games than it is in console games. (Having a single hardware platform to code to does help with the console games, but doesn't explain the huge difference in quality levels.)

The PC software industry has grown used to the idea that customers will put up with a defective product if they know a patch will be forthcoming. And as the Duck said, "Quality level is defined by what customers find acceptable."

We continue to buy prematurely released software, so companies continue to sell prematurely released software. The reason auto makers don't do it is because we wouldn't put up with it.

Let's be realistic here. For starters the complexity level of PC games is generally far higher than it is for console games. Take FPS games and soccer games, which are extremely common on both the PC and console formats. The SP game rarely requires any patches for either format. Take HL 2, Doom 3 and PES4 as fine examples of solid SP PC games. Now, up the ante to a strategy game, where the game elements are far more complex. To me, it's not surprising there are issues with them on release. For FPS and footie games, this also starts to happen when we include MP as this opens up another can of worms..

There's simply no way a small programming and QA team can unearth all the issues, given the level of the complexity in today's high-end strategy games. As a result, the only feasible way this is going to happen is by releasing a stable game to the mass market and letting thousands of gamers get their hands on it. Rome was extremely stable on release and it still plays well regardless of the issues. Therefore, I think CA achieved. They have since stated that they will release a patch to please the masses and fix issues they would never have discovered on their own.

I for one, will gladly keep supporting post-release patching for strategy games. To be perfectly honest, it's the only way I can see it work ...

[SwordsMaster]

come on guys, more whining? There are dozens of "a list of what needs to be patched" threads, I think they have it pretty clear already, specially considering that at the.com, TCW, and probably in a few more forums they are getting the same sort of threads. You are battering the same points over and over again.

Why dont you wait for it and THEN critizise?

IMO the game is so bugged and has the enormous amount of junk code it has because of all the pressure and that serious amount of "OH, IT WONT BE RELEASED TILL (insert date here) I CANT WAIT OMG" kind of posts. I think we all know how different the release dates and development times are on paper and then in real life. So the more you whine, more patches it will need.

Regards

[Bartman]

More likely because a car costs up to 1000 times that of a game. And it has been developed by thousands of people rather than less than 100.
So I guess it is up to us. Do we want games that cost 100$+ or do we want to wait for patches? I think I know what the general answer will be.

We could use the example of a wristwatch, a toaster, or even a cellphone instead of a car.
I'm not sure why some people seem to think this thread is about whining and complaining. The last dozen or so posts seem to just be discussing the reasons why things are the way they are, without commenting on whether it's good or bad.
If most of the people feel that CA/Activision is making games with the right mix of quality and price, then they are providing exactly what the market wants. That's the point of capitalism. Good for them.
I think your point, Krakis, is similar to what The Duck and I were saying. Quality is determined by what the customer will accept. If people are happier accepting a less expensive game that needs to be patched, then that's what the successful companies will deliver.

(There's a whole 'nother discussion about the actual relationship between software quality, and cost of development, but I get the feeling most of the people here don't particularly care..... )

[Bartman]

Let's be realistic here. For starters the complexity level of PC games is generally far higher than it is for console games.

There's simply no way a small programming and QA team can unearth all the issues, given the level of the complexity in today's high-end strategy games.

I hadn't considered the difference between strategy games (which are rare on consoles) and typical console-type games. You've got a good point.

I can think of a couple counter-examples though:

Sierra - Front Page Sports Football '99
(Was recalled. Everyone who asked got their money back. Sierra issued FOUR public apologies for the quality of the game, and eventually fired the entire sports software division. The amazing thing is that this game wasn't a new product. FPS Football had been around for a couple of years. How they managed to screw it up so bad in '99, when it was highly rated in '97 and '98 is still a mystery to me.)

Eidos - DeusEx Invisible War
(Several problems were so bad with the original release, that the game was virtually unplayable on many systems. The DeusEx series are single player FPS, available for XBox and PC. The XBox version played fine.)

[Jambo]

Actually Bartman, I'd tend to disagree. The whole point is, you can't really use the example of something mechanical with circuitry and compare it to something with millions of lines of code. The end product of a wristwatch or toaster is a working clock or a piece of toast, respectively; there are no other variables. Good strategy games are supposed to be open-ended, and therefore, the end product is completely different and usually highly subjective from one person to the next.

I think with the sheer size of strategy games released nowadays, there's simply no avoiding the current system of release then post-patch once feedback from the masses is obtained. Remember, strategy games of old were contained in entirety on a floppy disk or two! Now they come on no less than 3 CDs!

The scope of the games industry and the projects undertaken are very different in the 21st century and thus the practices of game developers and publishers have had to adjust accordingly.

[Jambo]

hEHE, and regards your last post, there will always be one or two examples which don't follow the norm. Bad games exist on all gaming formats.

[TheDuck]

I hadn't considered the difference between strategy games (which are rare on consoles) and typical console-type games. You've got a good point.

I can think of a couple counter-examples though:

Sierra - Front Page Sports Football '99
(Was recalled. Everyone who asked got their money back. Sierra issued FOUR public apologies for the quality of the game, and eventually fired the entire sports software division. The amazing thing is that this game wasn't a new product. FPS Football had been around for a couple of years. How they managed to screw it up so bad in '99, when it was highly rated in '97 and '98 is still a mystery to me.)

Eidos - DeusEx Invisible War
(Several problems were so bad with the original release, that the game was virtually unplayable on many systems. The DeusEx series are single player FPS, available for XBox and PC. The XBox version played fine.)

Everyone not technical can ignore this post.. (although it is an interesting aside)...

PS2/Xbox/GC programming assumes one thing that can't be assumed away on PCs: A stable hardware/operating system/driver layer that does not change. Console developers simply do not have to contend with making sure their software runs on millions of unique configurations. If it works on Xbox number 1, it works on number 1,999,923. That vastly simplies the quality assurance problems and gives engineers a better chance of delivering working code the first time.

As observed above, there are always basic quality issues that some shops just can't seem to get right. But delivering good quality games comes within the reach of the 'average' engineering group (rather than requiring the rare 'stellar performer') when your testing solution set is so much smaller. I believe that is the true reason consoles look to consumers like generally higher quality.. Its because the testing/quality problem is different by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude for the engineers creating it and the test engineers testing it.

Finally, I also agree with the above statements on patched up quality against price. The market is topped regarding acceptable price, and patches keep most users happy. The model works and gaming companies will not respond until they can't sell product to survive with the current model.

[HarunTaiwan]

Maybe finding the bugs and bitching is half the fun.

I know playing before reading any manual works for me.

But still, some basic play problems like bribery should have been fixed before release.

Thank god patches are pretty easy to get...must suck if you did not have an internet connection.

[Tocca]

A paralell:

A couple of months ago it was time to do a secutiry inspection of my old car. I knew there was problems with the car, and that it would probably not pass the inspection (meaning i would get a driving ban on the car for not passing).

I have two options.

1. Leave my car at a repair shop, asking them to check up on everything and fix what's needed to make it pass the coming inspection.
This could cost anything from $200 to... well, whatever really.

2. Proceed with the security inspection with the car as is. This is what i did. I got a list with the faults on the car.
The inspection costed $40.
I then went to a repair shop and showed them the paper from the inspection. "Fix theese things please" i said.
It costed $400 roughly.

If i had gone with #1 it would most certainly had cost me more, and i wouldn't even be guaranteed that the car would pass inspection!

I think we will have to live with this kind of releases. The only way to stop it would be a massive negative feedback, with customers demanding nonbugged software.
The result of such a demand would be one of two things in my view.
1. More expensive software
2. More developers closing shop.
Or more probably a combination of the two.

Already as is today, many developers are having a really hard time making any good money (not counting the few really sucessful developers)
They won't be able to hire the needed people to test the software enough on the current budget, no way.
In other words. It will be the end of all nichegames, only the big sellers will be released... I wouldn't be happy if that day arrives.

[eadingas]

Check any other type of software. There are more patches released for regular office ware (and I don't mean Microsoft, they live off patches :) than for any game.