Release now, fix later

[styckx]

Tori's post in the other forum about if 2012 has bugs etc not to get all angry got me thinking about a topic that has always bothered me.

Sadly, we live in an age where having buggy and broken products and software delivererd is the norm now. Not speaking of RSC entirely, all developers. Hardly a game or app comes out anymore where just days later the developer puts out a notice saying a patch is in the works for a handful of major issues that pop up the day of release. It is all about making the deadline, and patching (in some cases finishing) it later. Nearly all developers are guilty of it. I forget when the practice started but I do remember a time when it wasn't like this and gold releases were pretty much glitch and bug free.

Bethsoft is notorious for this "release now, fix later" (waaay later) approach to development. Ship Simulator Extremes was probably one of the worst offenders of this. It was a steaming broken pile when it was released. Almost no one could run it and their support forums were a mob scene of people demanding their money back. Months and months later they are still fixing it. Many agree now the game was released unfinished to make a deadline and get cash to actually finish it.

Thoughts on this practice?

[EliteMarksman]

Due to the nature of PCs, there will always be some bugs. Either someone has hardware that the developer didn't check for compatibility or someone is using the program in a way that the developer didn't foresee. However, these should be limited numbers of people complaining, especially about a single issue.

What ticks me off is bugs in console games. Every console has the exact same hardware with the exact same OS build. There is no excuse for major bugs at release when you have 100% knowledge of the software and hardware environments your product will be used in.

[Paragon]

I have been a software developer since 1983, so if I may share my insights they would be that software suffers from having to endure perhaps the most unpredictable set of variables known in the universe: the human user. It's bad enough to have to account for one's self, the only user of the software throughout the development cycle, much less the unique personalities of users in the wild. It is impossible to get it right on the "first try." If you want good software, don't let me see it until it's gone through tens of thousands of "trys" on what you consider a version worth publishing.

This is why I support open software development. Good software requires a science-based draft and review process that repeats throughout the life time of the product. Open development widens the scope of input considerably, and allows the drafts to be honest, and the changes requested solve actual problems. Closed software must follow pathways based on unscientific concerns, often under the general headings of Marketing and Politics.

Even to this day, one shells out thousands for commercial software, full in the knowledge one is being used as a guinea pig.

RailWorks strikes the proper balance, in my view. It allows all of us to get involved to whatever extent our talent and time permits, while providing a platform for artists to be paid for their work. And you get all of this for essentially pennies, and a major upgrade for free. This makes me want to publish how-tos on everything serious I do for others to use. Again, my costs to do this are 99% my time alone.

As an aside, it should be noted that the software known as Human Genome Expression follows the first-fit model. No testing. Hardware upgrades only. You get one version, 1.0, and that's that. This is the fundamental reason good software is so difficult to write: you have to accommodate THAT.

[Chessie8638]

For a moment all I thought about was this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6PZhONZ3Ac

lol

I really don't mind if a company releases a game then a patch shortly (within hrs or a day) after release. But longer then a week let alone months, then that's just wrong.

[TDHenderson]

I do agree it is frustrating to an extent. But then I remember back to the days before the Internet when games came on floppy disks. Never ever got any patches for any of those games, did we? Sure there are a few old games that have been kept on life-support by 3rd Party modders over the years, but those are rare (maybe we can count good old MSTS as one in that category).

Trevor

[ca2kjet]

Simple reason; it's become too easy to release fixes and patches via the Internet starting around the early 2000s (enter mainstream broadband).

Like Elite Marksman remarked above, even consoles which are all the SAME exact platform have major bugs to the point that some games are unplayable which makes you wonder how on Earth something like that could have been released. And since you can't easily return a PC game, well, why should the developers care? They got your money and there's nothing you can do but whine. The days of demos are over... so the only way to know if a game is ACTUALLY finished is to download an illegal copy (Disclaimer: no, I'm not advocating such things!)

With something like RW, I see it as an ever evolving virtual world and I'm fine with bugs that pop up. Sand box environments are in many ways impossible to really test and the same goes for many other games that operate that way.

[dejoh]

The days of demos are over? Really? Try here.
http://www.worthdownloading.com/
There are many site to try out games before you buy. RailSim was one of them.

[Chessie8638]

Indeed demos are not over. Steam has a bunch and they do "free weekends" for various games every now and again.

On another note: I commend DICE for having a Alpha AND Beta test of Battlefield 3 before release.

[styckx]

Indeed demos are not over. Steam has a bunch and they do "free weekends" for various games every now and again.

On another note: I commend DICE for having a Alpha AND Beta test of Battlefield 3 before release.

They did the same for BFBC 2 and the game was awesome from day 1.

[g_nash]

Too much acceptance .. easier for most to accept that they paid good money for a pile of horse leavings and say nothing
Too many apologists .... oh noeess their just a small company we should help them , regardless of the dollar value of said company

Nothing will change .. ever.

[Hawk]

Sure there are a few old games that have been kept on life-support by 3rd Party modders over the years, but those are rare.

Trevor

Railroad Tycoon 3 is one of those.

[ca2kjet]

IMO, demos are over. The majority of triple A titles do not come out as demos anymore. Once upon a time you could find a demo of any new game that was released. I remember waiting hours for that 90mb demo to finish downloading to start the next download. Now, it's harder to come by. Granted, some developers are smart enough to offer a demo but too many will offer a demo that is a limited engine release which may show the game in terms of what it's like but will not run the same as the final release which makes it impossible to truly test the compatibility of it.

I don't care if I waste money on something I may not like, but I can't stand buying something that doesn't work because I had absolutely no way to test it.

And yes, Steam does indeed offer a selection of demos but those are primarily made up of indie games which offer a demo for marketing purposes and other games that are relatively simple and/or low budget. Which is ironic, since the big boys could learn a thing or two from what the smaller guys offer in terms of demos and quality due to simplicity.

[WhiteKnight77]

This is a touchy subject for lots of people honestly. More and more, publishers are pushing out games long before they are ready and it just isn't PC games anymore. As a matter of fact, the old adage of console gaming being plug and play no longer stands, not with HD installs, patches and console updates (it is firmware or driver updates after all).

The first games I ever played on the PC were Rainbow Six and Jane's Fighter Anthology. I didn't have to patch either of them as R6 was already patched when I bought it (Gold Edition) and FA ran good on the PC I had at the time. I then got Rogue Spear and there were only 2 patches released for it (RS and UO each got patches). The thing was, RSE had released games that did not have many bugs to begin with. The major bugs got fixed even if there were some small ones that didn't. The same happened with Ghost Recon. RSE didn't have to release but a few small patches to fix anything that needed fixing. Once RSE was bought up by another company, R6 needed many patches once Raven Shield was released (and they still haven't been able to get a grip on a bug that has plagued the R6 series since Ubisoft took over development of the R6 series).

There are a few other games that I have played that didn't need a ton of patches thankfully, but there are many that need patches left and right. Now, I do understand about 1st day patches as many times, there are intentional bugs left in purposely to find out where piracy takes place (Ubisoft has done this and found that a disc presser responsible for a leaked version of Prince of Persia), but to have game stopping bugs that cannot be patched out first day is reprehensible and shows a money grab by them. It also shows disdain for the very ones who are buying the game.

All games are going to have a few bugs, but to have broken games on the day of release outside of what I mentioned above is sad and publishers who release games in such sad shape do not deserve our business. Unfortunately, it often is too late to find out if a game is broken badly before purchase.

As far as demos, they are still there, except many are disguised as beta tests. Beta tests really should be left to those who are interested in checking for bugs instead of a way to play the game before anyone else. I always liked the demos released by RSE, they were an actual level from the game and were finished parts of the games. They didn't make a level just to release as a demo. More companies should do that instead. At least there is one studio that will release a demo of some sort for it's game.

[harryadkins]

I can't imagine what pressures must be on small companys like RS.com in today's economy. As far as I'm concerned, they're doing a great job and fixing a release is no issue. With all the variations of PC's out there, I am not at all surprised at the incompatibility issues (mine included). I say let's be patient and work together with the developers to make TS2012 even more awesome than it already is.

[Kali]

I am wondering if perhaps steam needs an opt-in public beta facility, complete with reporting tools - thanks to the overlay you don't even have to exit the game, and there's a possibility of beta releases being written to pass debugging metrics to Steam to save you some effort when you're sending a report. It's easy enough to remove a game via the platform so you wouldn't even necessarily have to limit it to RW3-esque upgrades either.

Actually nothing would stop you running a closed-group beta through steam either.