Open question~ PATCH PHILOSOPHY

[mattbooty]

I agree that there are things getting missed that really should not be getting missed.

That said, I think a lot of people have a misconception about what a software tester actually does. It is not the same as "beta tests" that a lot of people are familiar with. A lot of these people may not even get to play the entire game, but only a very specific set of conditions. Most cases it is not "I play the game to find out where it can be improved, whether gameplay mechanics mirror real life, etc" It is " I am going to catch 500 punts in a row to make sure some set of variables does not make the game crash or cause my player to suddenly disappear and reappear at the other end of the field, etc". On top of that, when you find a bug there is no guarantee you can reproduce it or that the dev's will even believe that it was an actual bug. Some dev's even get nasty to testers when they break their code (i've seen it).

I'm not trying to defend EA or their testers for releasing with issues, but keep in mind the things we say make the game "unplayable" are problems, but we are exaggerating when we say this. The game would truly be unplayable if the testers let through a bug that caused every national championship game to crash in the middle of the 3rd quarter if the score was 24-10 and you had a facemask penalty.... THAT is unplayable and THAT is what the testers are trying to sort out.

Yes there should be a second level of finding out if the game is "fun" and "realistic" (which is really what we are complaining about) but lack of a pass rush is really not a bug and is not necessarily the job of the testers to discover. and likely if they brought this up to someone they would be told its not their job.

All of that said, it is pretty bad when issues that had to be fixed via patch last year will be again this year.

Back to the original point of this thread, I don't think you'll ever get new features via a patch. Even as adam said, when they have to fix bugs through patches, it eliminates adding features via patches. What I think is more realistic would be a paid DLC halfway through the life-cycle that possibly provided some of the new features due in next years release.

I do have a question for Adam (if he read this whole post), do you have a time window for patches? Do you say that, once X weeks are gone we will no longer patch this game? I would think you'd have a drop-dead date like this.

[GetYaWeigtUp]

Quote: Originally Posted by mattbooty

I agree that there are things getting missed that really should not be getting missed. That said, I think a lot of people have a misconception about what a software tester actually does. It is not the same as "beta tests" that a lot of people are familiar with. A lot of these people may not even get to play the entire game, but only a very specific set of conditions. Most cases it is not "I play the game to find out where it can be improved, whether gameplay mechanics mirror real life, etc" It is " I am going to catch 500 punts in a row to make sure some set of variables does not make the game crash or cause my player to suddenly disappear and reappear at the other end of the field, etc". On top of that, when you find a bug there is no guarantee you can reproduce it or that the dev's will even believe that it was an actual bug. Some dev's even get nasty to testers when they break their code (i've seen it). I'm not trying to defend EA or their testers for releasing with issues, but keep in mind the things we say make the game "unplayable" are problems, but we are exaggerating when we say this. The game would truly be unplayable if the testers let through a bug that caused every national championship game to crash in the middle of the 3rd quarter if the score was 24-10 and you had a facemask penalty.... THAT is unplayable and THAT is what the testers are trying to sort out. Yes there should be a second level of finding out if the game is "fun" and "realistic" (which is really what we are complaining about) but lack of a pass rush is really not a bug and is not necessarily the job of the testers to discover. and likely if they brought this up to someone they would be told its not their job. All of that said, it is pretty bad when issues that had to be fixed via patch last year will be again this year. Back to the original point of this thread, I don't think you'll ever get new features via a patch. Even as adam said, when they have to fix bugs through patches, it eliminates adding features via patches. What I think is more realistic would be a paid DLC halfway through the life-cycle that possibly provided some of the new features due in next years release. I do have a question for Adam (if he read this whole post), do you have a time window for patches? Do you say that, once X weeks are gone we will no longer patch this game? I would think you'd have a drop-dead date like this.

Thanks for that info on the testing aspect of these games, I had no real knowledge of it how it is done. My question is more to the point though, who does the gameplay, and how did he or them not notice that the DL is never really getting to the QB with an initial rush? How did they not notice that the QB has all day to throw on about 95% of all pass plays? Does he or them actually care to see the actual success rate of players on a given play or series or are they concerned with the animations?

NCAA 10 seems to have overhauled the animations aspect of the game, but have not worked on the actual success rate of players on a given play! A stuf DE should be able to get some instant pressure on pass downs or certain times of the game.

[Adam_Thompson_EA]

Quote: Originally Posted by Vikes1

Powerful post Rudy. Normally I stay out of the NCAA discussion, but your post caught my eye. I stopped buying/playing NCAA a few years ago, because I didn't care for the direction this game was being taken. So no need for me to be piling on. But I agree will your thoughts. I also believe the "Testers" are getting too much of the heat, for the problems the last few years. I mean no disrespect to anyone, but I just can't imagine all of these problems are being missed by all the game testers that were mentioned. The game testers just seem like an easy target these days.

You are correct. I am not pointing a finger at anyone (I certainly wouldn't do it on a public forum), and ultimately the responsibility does fall on me and the rest of the production team for any problems with the game.

The real key is that what is done is done. Deciding who's fault it was doesn't help anything. We have to focus on fixing the problem and putting in a better process in the future for making sure bugs are caught before the game is final.

This thread is about patches and when/why/how to use them. We are finaling the first patch now that will fix known issues.

[Adam_Thompson_EA]

Quote: Originally Posted by mattbooty

I do have a question for Adam (if he read this whole post), do you have a time window for patches? Do you say that, once X weeks are gone we will no longer patch this game? I would think you'd have a drop-dead date like this.

I read the whole post. You were spot on in regards to bugs versus tuning/tweaking and what testers really do.

We don't really have a drop dead date to stop patching. It is really a moving date. If we find something big in August, we'll patch it. If we find something big in February not very likely to get patched (afterall, if we don't hear about or find an issue for 7 months after the game comes out then it can't be that serious). There is also financial factors involved as we have to pay to put out the patches, so it has to get improved by the money guys.

[CandyEyes32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Adam_Thompson_EA

You are correct. I am not pointing a finger at anyone (I certainly wouldn't do it on a public forum), and ultimately the responsibility does fall on me and the rest of the production team for any problems with the game. The real key is that what is done is done. Deciding who's fault it was doesn't help anything. We have to focus on fixing the problem and putting in a better process in the future for making sure bugs are caught before the game is final. This thread is about patches and when/why/how to use them. We are finaling the first patch now that will fix known issues.

Adam,

Posts like this are very much appreciated. Thank you for all of the hard work you and your team put into NCAA year in and year out. Owning the responsibility for the issues says a lot about you. Thank you again for this post Adam.

[rudyjuly2]

Quote: Originally Posted by Adam_Thompson_EA

You are correct. I am not pointing a finger at anyone (I certainly wouldn't do it on a public forum), and ultimately the responsibility does fall on me and the rest of the production team for any problems with the game. The real key is that what is done is done. Deciding who's fault it was doesn't help anything. We have to focus on fixing the problem and putting in a better process in the future for making sure bugs are caught before the game is final. This thread is about patches and when/why/how to use them. We are finaling the first patch now that will fix known issues.

Fair enough. But some of the procedures currently in place HAVE to be changed to make sure the sliders or other major areas aren't shipped broken in NCAA 11.

[hcopenhagenh]

To ship this game with broken anything is unacceptable. Being able to patch is a crutch so that you won't lose money. However, where is the pride of putting out a product that IS NOT BROKEN?

I have an important question. What would you have done 15 years ago if the game was being shipped in this condition and you new about it? There was a PS1 version of NCAA that shipped and didn't work properly. I lived in Orlando at the time. EA took every NCAA game off the shelf. They fixed the problem, printed new discs, then shipped them out. The broken game I had purchased was replaced. That is customer service. Are there any other old timers that remember this?

EA should bite their pride and delay this game two weeks. To me patching a broken game is a crutch.

[mattbooty]

Quote: Originally Posted by hcopenhagenh

To ship this game with broken anything is unacceptable. Being able to patch is a crutch so that you won't lose money. However, where is the pride of putting out a product that IS NOT BROKEN?

I hate to keep sounding like I'm totally backing up EA on this, because there are issues that need fixed and certainly major mistakes were made (and I certainly don't agree with every decision they've made), but to be frank, every piece of software that is ever shipped has a broken something. You just may not have noticed or found it. There is no such thing as a perfect piece of software (unless its 5 lines of code or a hello world program).

There are certainly different levels of broken but every piece of complex software has something in it that doesn't work as was intended, its just the way it works. As a developer you just hope that those things are either very minor, or patchable. If, as you said, no one ever released software with a broken anything, no software would ever be released.

This thread has gotten very off topic, but remember there have been numerous games over the years that outright crash when certain variables are achieved, some making the game impossible to progress once a certain point is hit. THAT is broken. NCAA 2009 (we still don't know for sure on 2010) may have some glaring flaws but the game works. It may not do everything the way you want it to, but it works.

I'm not entirely happy with the progress NCAA has taken the last few years, and for the first time may not buy this year's game, but as a developer I have a problem when this game is called "broken" or "unplayable".

[JerseySuave4]

Quote: Originally Posted by GrayFolded

I would easily do it for free, as would many others here at OS, then it would be done right... Testing should be the MOST IMPORTANT thing in Game Development... Does EA hire the Blind to test???

you dont know the number of hours and things it takes to be a tester so while it sounds like a great job, just getting paid to play video games, thats not all that it is. Not to mention the long hours. So no you wouldnt do it for free. Or maybe you're only 14 years old and not a grown up that has bills to pay and responsibilities so you dont have to worry about money in your life but for a grown up that needs income, you wouldnt do it for free.

Quote: Originally Posted by GrayFolded

After reading multiple threads and hundreds of opinions on the matter, as well as the "Generic" responses from the EA folks, I have come to the conclusion that they just don't care.... Seriously, they really don't care....

the responses are somewhat generic because they aren't going to specifically point out which people might have screwed up or missed something. They dont throw each other under the bus. You're lucky they even take the time to respond to so many questions and opinions on these boards because other game designers dont take the time to read and respond to so many posts, especially from people that continue to bash their product.

If you've ever written a complaint letter to a company about a product, lets say your bike broke because it was not properly built or something, the response letter you get back (if you got one) would be generic and basically apologize for the problem and let you know that they intend to fix the problem and help you out. They won't say, well Joe didn't screw the screws in tight enough or Jim didn't measure things right so thats why there is a problem.

You guys complain and say how unacceptable it is that they ship a product with bugs and glitches. Guess none of you have ever seen a recall on a car.

[JerseySuave4]

adam,

when it comes to patches i was wondering if something like the camera can be changed or fixed in a patch? I'm not saying you must do this but is something like this even possibe? What i mean is, is it possible to put a patch in where we have the option to use the old camera angle instead of the one currently in the game?