Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
100% true. In the run up to the gold-master date, the project managers make a ton of difficult calls when it comes to waiving or known-shippable-ing bugs. The closer it gets, the more likely a bug will only be fixed if it violates Lot Check (Nintendo), TRCs (Sony), or TCRs (M).https://twitter.com/KrisInVR/status/1336039615203999745 …
But let's talk about that, and how it intersects with the concept of 0-day patches that are popular to rail against. "Back in the day, games didn't have 0-day patches," folks decry, but that simply wasn't an option in the era of mask-ROM cartridges.
Nowadays, the moment a title gets approved for release, the developers tend to immediately context-switch into fixing as many of the bugs which have a high value in fixing, but which were not necessarily a direct approval failure on the publisher's end.
Where devs would typically have a couple weeks of down-time before release, there is now that much more of a rush in order to prep the release-day patch. On Guitar Hero: World Tour Wii, we had a crash bug that QA missed pertaining to the Music Studio feature leaking memory.
I ran across it since I had the time to dink around with the game, with nothing better to do until it passed Lot Check. I reported it, and the project managers pretty much said, "Well, let's prep a fix, but also hope Nintendo don't find it". Nintendo didn't, we shipped with it.
Since the Wii had no provisions for post-release game patches, it simply never got fixed. The game is a buggier experience because of that. It can certainly be argued that perhaps more time should be blocked out for bug fixes, but that's unrelalistic.
*unrealistic. Games have an intractable level of code complexity these days, and there will *always* be edge-case bugs that end up getting found, but which are so rare or so hard to pull off by the average player that they aren't worth the development time to fix.
All that said, I want to give props to @KrisinVR and everyone else who works QA. There's a perpetual "devs vs. QA" dynamic in game development, and honestly, fuck that - QA *are* devs.
Testers are *the* most important devs on a project. They keep the rest of us honest.
Testers are the people who ensure that a company doesn't put out a game that runs on exactly one configuration of PC, or that doesn't crash every 3 minutes. You can have the most visually compelling, easy-to-play game, but if it's a buggy shit-heap, nobody's going to buy it.
There's also the aspect that gamers need to accept that modern games are astronomically more complicated than games in the 16 bit cartridge era and so of course there are a lot more surprise interactions -> sometimes bugs when they hit a real player base.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
