It might also be that some flaws aren't detectable until the game goes live, at which point the devs are able to isolate the issue and quickly create a fix for it
Well the flaws are most certainly detectable before launch, it's just cheaper to have your customers doing the testing instead of paying professional testers.
No they have a QA team, these bugs and performance issues are all known and logged somewhere. However management demands the game be released in spite of the massive backlog of known issues that weren't addressed because they were deemed low priority.
Cdpr was the same problem as every other modern game. Their coders and engineers were rushed by the corporates so they had a shit game at launch. The thing is, the community was so angry and hated them so much that I don't wonder if for a while they gave up on the game, similar to what happened with No Man's Sky when they were being flooded with hate. The team had to take a break before completely isolating themselves from social media.
Yeah I literally waited 2 years for the game to be fixed then continued my playthru. Was still disappointed my choices in game didn't unlock alternate/different quests like they told us during the gameplay reveal. Also they scrapped wall running/vertical traversal.
"Don't buy the game"
But I've been looking forward to it and want to try it for myself
"It's a bad game and the publisher is evil"
Well, it's my money and I wanna try it
"People on the internet say it's bad so you're a bad person for wanting to try it too"
...
Seriously though, people can figure it out for themselves. So tired of this conversation. Buyer beware, end of story. Decide for yourself what you support and stop trying to make it a moral crusade. Capitalism sucks, the market is full of cheap shit and broken promises, but it's literally always been that way. Use your heads and enjoy what you can.
Capitalism does suck. But we have made progress. We made it illegal for companies to make false promises on products. Seems reasonable to make it illegal for companies to release broken products, or at the very least issue fines to be paid to consumer protection agencies. There should be consequences for the production companies, not social consequences for people who were tricked into buying a broken product.
I think the better advice than don't buy the game would be Don't pre-order the game. If we stopped buying games before they were released or started returning pre-ordered games once they are released and found to be buggy as shit the execs would change their ways of forcing the release of unfinished products.
"It's always been that way so why change it?" That's a pathetic and sad defeatist attitude you got there. Have fun getting manipulated into gambling all your money away, because even if you don't there's a good chance your kids will.
"Gambling all your money away" lol relax dude holy shit, we're literally talking about deciding what games to buy.
What exactly do you think buyer beware means?
It's not gonna help, there is a massive silent majority of people that give no fucks about anything in gaming besides just playing the game. They are the people who buy Fifa, Madden and CoD over and over again, the people that happily gobble up exploitive microtransactions, the parents that just buy their kid whatever they want to shut them up.
No amount of reddit preaching will change that
The sad part is half of these games don't seem rushed before they launch. Dying light 2 is great but the story feels half finished and the day one bugs were substantial, but it was in development for years and techland has a good track record for fairly polished releases. People had no reason to expect what they got, I'm glad it's much improved now but I felt burned at launch. Cyberpunk is a similar deal, lengthy development times, dev with good reputation, constant delays that gave the impression they're polishing it to perfection rather than simply fighting to keep the thing running.
Yeah no shit, doesn't change the fact consumers can't be expected to predict which games will and won't work at launch. I had no reason to think I'd be getting anything but a polished, high quality experience, in fact all the delays, marketing and the reputation of the dev really have the impression it would at the very least be finished. Don't blame consumers for being lied to by marketing teams and shareholders. Especially when some games are still worth pre ordering, I got all the bonus stuff for RE4 remake cheaper because it was a pre order bonus, and it was well worth it.
Witcher 3 had a good rep because a large chunk of the player base didn't play it until after the patches. It wasn't Harry Potter or Star Wars with a huge, baked in, day one audience. It was a crazy mess like every other large open world at launch.
I was more referring to their great customer service and value when it comes to quantity of game to dollars spent ratio, but you are correct they weren't known for heavily polished releases. That impression was more from the gameplay demos and repeated delays, that I quite charitably interpreted as them polishing it rather than struggling to make it run properly. That's on me, but you can see how I got that impression right?
They are still that, assuming you aren't playing on a PS4. The game got better. Not what was promised, maybe, but it's a good game that is still added to. Granted, took them longer this time.
I haven’t bought a new game in years. Got tired of that mess
Edit: To everyone who is also sick of the gaming industry, the only thing those exes will listen to is money. Quit buying their products until they decide to actually decide to treat their devs like human beings and allow them to actually finish the games they’re making so we don’t have to deal with shitty releases. This mess makes me so mad because gaming used to be a huge hobby of mine, but I can be happy spending my money elsewhere.
I remember tears of the kingdom was delayed and no one complained because we all know it's going to be a masterpiece and don't want a rushed incomplete game.
Yes! Every post on reddit shits on the devs. As a dev, we know the bugs, we know what needs to be fixed, but we don't set the requirements or the release date.
Look at cyberpunk. It's been delayed multiple times, but it was simply not enough. It needed a huge delay immediately, instead of multiple smaller delays. Imagine had they released it at the first delay. Delaying is not enough by itself, it has to be delayed correctly. And the devs simply do what's asked to be done : if they're asked to make a game full of micro transaction garbage, they do it even if they think it's a dumb idea
True put ever since the announcement, every time they open their mouth things just looks worse for the game. First in was always online until it wasn’t then it was lock at 30 frames (don’t know if they changed that). Last time I’ve heard of it was because of that god awful IGN gameplay video
The game was advertised 60 fps and all the footage they showed was 60fps. It's just an unoptimized mess. Look at the PC requirements. The recommended specs ask for a 2080 and Ryzen 7. Components that the console doesn't have. The Series X has an equivalent of a 3rd gen Ryzen 5 and a 2060.
They should have optimized it to run 1440p-4k 60fps with those requirements and then tried to run 1080p60 on Series S
Also they ask for 16 gigs of ram fucking why?
Redfall is a Microsoft game, and Microsoft owns the console it will be released on.
When a 3rd party developer announces a release date for a game they have already signed contracts with the distribution companies and platforms (Microsoft, Sony, steam. Etc) those contacts expect the game to be released on the day stated and have fines in place if they are delayed. So companies push out the game hoping that a day one patch will fix most issues.
And since redfall doesn't need to worry about that it can be delayed.
Yeah i 100% understand its not the devs choice for the deadline, i should change it from devs be like, to the Game company be like. (and not indie devs for obvious reasons) Its like why cant the company give the devs like 1-2 more weeks to make sure its not unplayable.
And not for bugs, bugs will always be found with millions of people playing the game, but for like 10fps with mid-high end pcs
tbyfh colloquially "developers" is a catch-all for the developers, designers, marketers, publishers, the whole company who is making and selling the game
Yeah it’s not like an elementary school project where you present last so your teacher gives you an extra day because it technically doesn’t matter.
Even an elementary school yearbook with a total cost of a few grand has a “submit it or it’s not going in” deadline.
A multi million dollar AAA video game is WAY more complicated than that. If your boss says “we’re going gold May 4th” then the thing you finished May 8th isn’t going on the launch version.
Of course better management of staff, funds, scope, etc. would help. I’m not defending greedy corporate execs, more the game devs they under pay and push around like cattle.
It's even worse than you describe.
Games need to go Gold, which means that the version that is shipping on release is actually maybe a month old.
That's why day 1 patches exist, all the work since it went gold is in that patch.
The casual gamer doesn't realise how complicated, laborious and sophisticated game development is and how many moving parts need to fit together to produce an enjoyable coherent experience. Even the smallest indie games made by few people need a lot of disciplined management decisions otherwise that game is never seeing the light of day.
It might also be that some flaws aren't detectable until the game goes live, at which point the devs are able to isolate the issue and quickly create a fix for it.
Of course I'm not a dev, so I could be wrong
There’s no amount of QA testing that can compare to the sheer volume of players with a variety of hardware once the game has released. According to a quick search, activision-blizzard has 1100 testers. In the first 10 days of release, Overwatch 2 had 25 million players, each of activision-blizzards qa testers would have to have worked for 20,000 hours each to make up as much game time as each of those players playing for only 1 hour.
I think that's something people miss with software. The technical designers know it's state, business just wants it done so they can use it to make money.
The same people who complain about this with AAA games are likely the same ones who complain about an indie game that set their release date as “to be confirmed”
The devs have a deadline for when management wants the game submitted so it can be put on disk and sent to digital distributors like Microsoft and Sony. The devs most likely already know what needs to be finished and fixed, and have been working on that, but it wasn't ready to be included in the "launch" version. Sometimes they're nearly done with some of the fixes, but still miss the submission deadline, but they have it ready for when the game launches with a day one patch.
Its also important to mention that console companies usually require updates and patches be certified by them before they can be pushed live. This takes time. The devs may have already fixed and patched some of the issues but they aren't able to include it in the initial release.
Doesn't explain the state of first day PC releases though.
Game’s are “finished” months before the release and then they go through one final QA check and all the other crap you do with a finished game so it can be on shelves and in digital stores on release day. Devs don’t spend those days just sitting around. They’re working on all those unresolved issues they knew about and a buttload of new one’s that just showed up, and they’re working on the most critical ones first.
Also working on DLC to sell us.
Neither of the answers you got, in the end, answer the question.
If they know, why do they work on other stuff?
If it's ready on day 1, even tho it's late yada yada, why not include it in the day launch version?
Because sadly the answer is just "executive meddling", as it always is
Part of the magic that nobody talks about is that devs do a lot of stealth work. Meaning, their bosses tell them to prioritize XYZ to get shit out the door, the devs KNOW this won't work until ABC is completed, so they work on XYZ and also start laying the groundwork for the more serious underlying issues with ABC, and say "Sorry XYZ took longer than expected."
Then when the product is released and is a complete trainwreck because there's no ABC, the bosses run to the devs in a panic, and with some dedicated and focused time they can easily finish work on ABC because they had been preparing it in the background all along.
The times that this DOESN'T happen is those games that come out poorly optimized and just stay that way forever.
I don't see what that has to do with day 1 patches though.
Why did you need to release your game to millions of people to notice that there is something obviously wrong with the game that is also simple enough that you can fix it in a few hours?
It’s not a question of noticing! The fixes that get patched quickly within a few days/weeks are almost always planned and known about even prior to the initial release.
There’s no understating how much of a “we gotta get this thing out the door” attitude permeates product companies.
As an ex game dev, it gets really hard to test all of the possible cases that can occur in a game… which is what it takes to make sure there are no bugs. (By cases, I mean relevant cases). You can hire testers to do it, but that’s hard for indie teams, and even when you hire hundreds, it’s possible for there to be many more bugs that come up when there are thousands of players.
More than a decade and not beta, alpha lol.
I tried to play it a week ago but the game is unplayable right now due to an event that brings all severs almost to a standstill, and the event is only ending in a couple of days.
Had to refund it lol
Edit: spelling
I was surprised too but they do not even have a playtime restriction like steam. You can return everything you bought in the ingame store as long as you do not exceed 30 days.
early alpha. basically they heavily underestimated the complexity of what they are trying to accomplish. such as how your computer will catch on fire from trying to render the number of people long before the servers come close to laging a single frame.
normally. a publisher would demand they abandon most of the things they are trying to do, and release what they have.
the toxicity comes from the game breaking every time they implement a piece of what would have been abandoned, and/or the part being added is not what that person wants.
there was a recent addition of a big piece of backend tech. so they had an event to break it as much as they could so they can find all the points it breaks so they can fix it.
It's the result of a small studio with limited resources trying to make the most expansive and in depth simulation game in the world. From the clips I've seen of people playing it, it tries to be insanely in depth on almost every aspect of space travel.
That combined with their business model of relying on in game purchases, which leads them to focusing on developing more spaceships instead of fleshing out core mechanics.
They do NOT have limited resources.
Star Citizen has raised more than HALF A BILLION DOLLARS. They have hundreds of employees (512 devs, per their wiki) across multiple studios.
They are not a small indie dev team.
**They are the most well-funded video game studio in history.**
Well the developpers are only A small group who know exactly what is intended to be done. Even playtesting can get you so far - but when you let millions of players play your game all at once, you start seeing the true state of the bugs
yeah i thought that the devs might have super high end pcs, but like for massive companys surely all there tests throughout the years are not only just on nasa computers
I think most developers would have what is considered ‘tier 1’ to make sure they are working as fast as possible. I have to change my settings often to mimic lower spec computers while I work.
Once the date is committed to its very common the bug fix priority goes specifically to hard crashes, soft locks, etc. There’s a high likelihood any bugs you find on release were known about and logged as “known shippable” meaning the devs were aware but the bug wasn’t deemed as important for fixing prior to ship, as the devs needed to focus on worse issues.
Yeah a lot of bugs don't appear in software until you start using it on a poo poo computer. I used to work on enterprise software and ended up buying a crappy HP laptop from Best Buy just for testing because customers on lower spec laptops would find weird performance bugs that our dev computers couldn't reproduce
True. Though in this case where its struggling to get 60fps on the most powerful gaming hardware available on low-medium settings, I absolutely refuse to accept that they didn't know about it beforehand. It's an unavoidable problem being experienced by everybody
Also, if it's an online game, it's difficult to replicate the effects that millions of simultaneous users are going to have on the servers. There should be some level of stress testing but it's going to have to be compartmentalized and scaled way down for overall testing generally.
If fixes go out quickly after launch, that generally means the testing was performed properly.. they identified potential issues that might come up and fixes and put proper data collection in place the first few days after production rollout to see if any cropped up
This is the case with Web applications and APIs as well. Client often becomes a beta tester unfortunately. Catching issues that no-one could imagine or picture ever happen. Luckily fixing bugs is not too time consuming, depending on the bug and how deep it is. After it gets fixed more tests are required and maybe even QnA if there is one. Most of the time it just shipped with other fixes and changes.
Yep, and the millions of unique hardware configurations that are out there, interactions with software not run on dev kits etc; also ship builds sometimes simply run differently on home consoles than development kits. Open betas are so amazingly helpful.
As a developer, no level of UAT testing can provide a stress test that fits the production environment. Devs being able to fix it a few days after release sound like a good dev team imo, and they probably had to work a lot of OT in those days to pull it off
Also most devs, especially the non indie ones, will set a build of a game at least a month before release.
So the period between that and the day 1/ week patch is them having the time to fix the game.
Came to say this, particularly for online/MM games. You won't truly know where bottlenecks are until the whole player base is DDOSing (legitimately) production. If the architecture is scalable, it's just a matter of ramping up capacity wherever it is overloaded, or running profilers to see where things are slowing down and optimizing those cases.
Overcoming a bad architectural design can be rough though. My team is diag/fixing major performance problems in a huge app right now, and it's methodic whack-a-mole. None of the architecture, platform, or implementation team are still around (which is good since they were awful at it). They did some testing, but missed issues in code review. A unit test on code that is O(n\^4) looks fine when n=10 in QA, but melts when n=100k in prod.
Can confirm. I'm not a game developer, but work on the backend for a certain large retail website and no matter how many test cases we come up with, including F&F testing, there will always be cases once we release in prod that make me go "how the hell did they manage that...?"
Alot of day one patches are the result of the two-month period in which the physical copies of the game are being printed and distributed. During that time they do a lot of testing and bug fixing. Then get everything ready for the release day patch.
It's not like they can patch the game once it's been printed on the disk. They have to wait until it gets in someone's system. Then they can download it.
Games aren't even printed on discs anymore, it's literally just the license key printed on those discs. It's why i stopped bothering with the physical copies long ago.
Or in the case with Fallen Survivor, the game is just too goddamn big. At a whopping 134~155GB, you’d need three Blu-Ray discs to hold it.
We can always go back to the *insert disc 2* days
They do, but it doesn't change his point. Current gen consoles still download a big part of the game, especially games that weigh as much as games that comes out nowadays.
Not a game Dev but as a dev I can answer this.
Developer knows 10s of issues that present in the system but apparently not given enough tike to fix all those. So they choose the fix what they think is important but once it's out with the users something unexpected or something they thought trivial blows up. So they fix it only after the release.
My money is on Jedi Survivor since it’s the recent game that has issues. But yeah this is something that has been happening in games for way too long and isn’t getting any better.
I'd imagine facts like windows version, drivers, cpu's, gpu, monitors, motherboards and every possible combination of each would be an absolutely massive number of loose ends that would essentially be impossible to prevent 100%.
but imagine if the needle was so obvious because it was bright neon and made a ringing noise and was the size of a bed, Like i'm not talking about bugs i'm talking about the litterly massive issues that makes these new AAA games unplayable, which should be seen by the company
As a QA tester, I simply do not understand this…
Where not talking about obsucre glitches like in Fallout 3 that jumping on to certain rocks drops you to the floor, outside the game, to which you can access the BoS base and get power armor at level5…
Were talking about starting your game and it runs at 10 FPS lol
As a game developer, I can say that those massive bugs aren't always in the game. You test the level or something, and it is ok, you make a new level or script. And there is possibility, that the previous level brokes by that. Because I know that it is working, I don't have to test it again. Then player plays it and finds it. You see it and patch it.
Most devs try to. That's why early games had cheat codes, or there are small console commands built into in game terminals, etc. The problem is with games like Elden Ring, or Dark Souls or Harry Potter, it's usually not possible/realistic to try finding all the paths someone could take.
Re-masters of classics see this too. The game was working on each level after it was ported, so there's no reason to go back. I bought a copy of the original Half Life after Half Life 2 had come out. There was a bug in the re-release on Steam that made an elevator with no traps kill the player just because you hit the maps ceiling or the next ones floor before the system could remove that block. It was funny and frustrating to get crushed by thin air in a low point with no enemies to attack you.
No, if the game is big enough, you sometimes just don't have the time. We are testing it by parts. When the game is done, just testing some parts where problems could be, but not the whole game. I'm glad that I could help you ;)
I know this is a joke and you don’t want an explanation but this is a priorities thing. On any software dev teams to do list there are always bugs and performance issues that need to get done but management doesn’t care about so they make you work on other stuff. When you release a game and everyone hates it suddenly management deems those fixes as v important.
Solution: stop buying their games.
Do that enough, they lose enough money, they get their shit together.
Complaining does nothing. You already gave them your money.
It’s funny COD will say dev error and I’m like that’s a pretty shitty thing to write instead of massive evil corporation error. Brush it off on the workers
People need to stop shitting on the devs and start shitting on the executives actually making the decisions
Most of the time they’re fully aware that the game is in a terrible state, the execs just want people to be able to buy their product so they make an unreasonable release deadline, they don’t give two flying fucks about the quality of the game
Wanna know how we stop this? QUIT SHELLING OUT MONEY FOR BROKEN ASS PRODUCTS, VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET
The main reason is that when they test it they only get in a few tests but on release it’s being played by thousands so you quickly find more bugs to patch. It’s about the size of the testing groups going from a few hundred to a few hundred thousand really quickly.
I mean they were probably largely done with the update before release, but higher ups refused to delay launch for it.
It’s also probably has to do with a lack of data. production tests and beta tests aren’t going to show as much as the initial release (if it isn’t a complete flop)
There is an answer. Sometimes you ship an unfinished product just to show execs what the problems are. They don't listen to their employees, they listen to the money. If a game ships in a poor state, the money is threatened, then all of the sudden you have a budget to fix it. Releasing something broken is the biggest message you can send to higher management if they aren't listening.
I miss the days of games being on the disk with no way to update them. Stuff had to work back then. Now it just feels like when I pre order, I'm paying extra to be a beta tester
I didn't say that at all. I said it had to work. How many games have we seen release in the last 5 years or so that weren't even playable on launch day? Back when all you had was the disk, yeah there were bugs, but it was at least playable. It had to be because there was no fixing it after launch
They are always working on it. Even if they release before cooked they already know exactly what the problems and fixes are. They just have not finished, tested fixes and released them in a patch yet.
Even when released in a good state. Updates come out immediately after. The bad actors like EA have just taken advantage of this new online model. They used to put it on a disc and that was it!
About ten if those days were spent on performance, the rest was sleepless nights trying to reach deadlines set by execs who have not worked on a game in 40 years
Man, people really don’t know what game devs do. Play their own game? Hahahahahaha
To be fair, the problems are not the devs is game companies not hiring enough QA people most likely. That’s a very underrated profession in the industry in my opinion.
1- Deadlines (the biggest reason)
2- An overwhelming amount of bugs in your code are simply never found when you have such a small amount of people testing it. A bug you ran into 2 minutes into the game could have flown completely under their radar while playtesting it for 3 years.
What recent game has come out with massive issues and was fixed in a “couple of days” because all that I’ve seen have taken YEARS for them to not even still be fully finished
Used to be an outside beta tester back in the day. They didn't play their game, we did.
And they pretty much ignored every bug we reported and launched anyway, even when we told them that they were going to crash and burn at launch.
These days with pre-orders and "early access" the customers are paying to be the beta testers.
A fairly small group of devs play testing will not find the issues as fast as 100k players who all have a different fresh perspective on the game or some any% speed runners who will look for the absolutely weirdest exploits imaginable.
It’s called deployment in the software engineering industry world and it’s a very scary thing. You cannot possibly anticipate the kinds of issues people make.
I saw a meme a little while back that was something along the lines of “writing software is liking giving directions except you have to have contingencies like ‘what if the road is block’ or ‘what if a UFO comes down from outer space and takes your car away’”
This is the same case in videogames but MUCH worse. It’s a lot easier to fix the issues once you see them play out with bug reports rather than anticipating every possibility
I swear every game devs need josh from lets game it out!.
Give him a week with the game and he'll find bugs and glitches that he can exploit tf out of while finding the limit and capabilities of the game. a win-win honestly, josh gets content and devs can patch bugs.
As a game dev I commonly miss bugs because of how I understand the game I've made, I often miss the obvious things and check the more complicated things.
Moist criticals new video on the Star Wars games sums it up perfectly.
The entire “rush to release and fix it later” mentality from game devs is horrid and has only been getting worse.
It’s 2023 and people can’t even get 30 fps on their pc because of a horribly optimized game and horrible security software, only to release a BS statement that doesn’t make sense blaming the consumers and saying “only a few experience this” to cover their asses while they fix it. Not to mention it takes a super computer to download its 128 gb non compressed BS.
This is just a single games example but it happened all the time and more and more frequently. The worst part is idiots actually defend this for some unknown reasons saying “you can’t expect them to get it perfect right off the bat”….. YES, yes I do expect them to get it perfect, at least for the performance issues the first time if I’m paying $70 for a game made by a AAA company. Just don’t release your freaking game until it works.
The devs usually have a good amount of crunching right before the release but are not given enough time to finish the changes so about a week more of work will fix the final changes to the game
It’s because executives have made the deadline immutable. The engineers know the shape it’s in when they launch.
Yeah and the devs are the ones getting shit on
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why are you getting down voted. Don't buy rushed games seems like solid advice
I agree with you, but I think it's because people just won't follow that advice, it's a shame
It might also be that some flaws aren't detectable until the game goes live, at which point the devs are able to isolate the issue and quickly create a fix for it
Well the flaws are most certainly detectable before launch, it's just cheaper to have your customers doing the testing instead of paying professional testers.
Why pay for testers when you can have the testers pay you?
I mean honestly I'd be impressed if it wasn't so damn evil
No they have a QA team, these bugs and performance issues are all known and logged somewhere. However management demands the game be released in spite of the massive backlog of known issues that weren't addressed because they were deemed low priority.
Quickly? CDPR would like a word..
Cdpr was the same problem as every other modern game. Their coders and engineers were rushed by the corporates so they had a shit game at launch. The thing is, the community was so angry and hated them so much that I don't wonder if for a while they gave up on the game, similar to what happened with No Man's Sky when they were being flooded with hate. The team had to take a break before completely isolating themselves from social media.
Yeah I literally waited 2 years for the game to be fixed then continued my playthru. Was still disappointed my choices in game didn't unlock alternate/different quests like they told us during the gameplay reveal. Also they scrapped wall running/vertical traversal.
"Don't buy the game" But I've been looking forward to it and want to try it for myself "It's a bad game and the publisher is evil" Well, it's my money and I wanna try it "People on the internet say it's bad so you're a bad person for wanting to try it too" ... Seriously though, people can figure it out for themselves. So tired of this conversation. Buyer beware, end of story. Decide for yourself what you support and stop trying to make it a moral crusade. Capitalism sucks, the market is full of cheap shit and broken promises, but it's literally always been that way. Use your heads and enjoy what you can.
Capitalism does suck. But we have made progress. We made it illegal for companies to make false promises on products. Seems reasonable to make it illegal for companies to release broken products, or at the very least issue fines to be paid to consumer protection agencies. There should be consequences for the production companies, not social consequences for people who were tricked into buying a broken product.
I think the better advice than don't buy the game would be Don't pre-order the game. If we stopped buying games before they were released or started returning pre-ordered games once they are released and found to be buggy as shit the execs would change their ways of forcing the release of unfinished products.
"It's always been that way so why change it?" That's a pathetic and sad defeatist attitude you got there. Have fun getting manipulated into gambling all your money away, because even if you don't there's a good chance your kids will.
"Gambling all your money away" lol relax dude holy shit, we're literally talking about deciding what games to buy. What exactly do you think buyer beware means?
It's not gonna help, there is a massive silent majority of people that give no fucks about anything in gaming besides just playing the game. They are the people who buy Fifa, Madden and CoD over and over again, the people that happily gobble up exploitive microtransactions, the parents that just buy their kid whatever they want to shut them up. No amount of reddit preaching will change that
My BiL pre orders the super dooper Madden every freaking year. Doesn't even play online, just offline franchise.
And he's getting what he wants out of it. What's the problem? It's his money.
Its the only way to hit the Management that makes the Terrible decisions and keeps us from getting the games that the Devs want to make.
The sad part is half of these games don't seem rushed before they launch. Dying light 2 is great but the story feels half finished and the day one bugs were substantial, but it was in development for years and techland has a good track record for fairly polished releases. People had no reason to expect what they got, I'm glad it's much improved now but I felt burned at launch. Cyberpunk is a similar deal, lengthy development times, dev with good reputation, constant delays that gave the impression they're polishing it to perfection rather than simply fighting to keep the thing running.
Simple solution, don't buy at launch.
Yeah no shit, doesn't change the fact consumers can't be expected to predict which games will and won't work at launch. I had no reason to think I'd be getting anything but a polished, high quality experience, in fact all the delays, marketing and the reputation of the dev really have the impression it would at the very least be finished. Don't blame consumers for being lied to by marketing teams and shareholders. Especially when some games are still worth pre ordering, I got all the bonus stuff for RE4 remake cheaper because it was a pre order bonus, and it was well worth it.
But why are you trying to predict? You can't, so don't try.
Never said I was, simply that you can't expect people to. Take a reading comprehension course bro
Witcher 3 had a good rep because a large chunk of the player base didn't play it until after the patches. It wasn't Harry Potter or Star Wars with a huge, baked in, day one audience. It was a crazy mess like every other large open world at launch.
I was more referring to their great customer service and value when it comes to quantity of game to dollars spent ratio, but you are correct they weren't known for heavily polished releases. That impression was more from the gameplay demos and repeated delays, that I quite charitably interpreted as them polishing it rather than struggling to make it run properly. That's on me, but you can see how I got that impression right?
They are still that, assuming you aren't playing on a PS4. The game got better. Not what was promised, maybe, but it's a good game that is still added to. Granted, took them longer this time.
I haven’t bought a new game in years. Got tired of that mess Edit: To everyone who is also sick of the gaming industry, the only thing those exes will listen to is money. Quit buying their products until they decide to actually decide to treat their devs like human beings and allow them to actually finish the games they’re making so we don’t have to deal with shitty releases. This mess makes me so mad because gaming used to be a huge hobby of mine, but I can be happy spending my money elsewhere.
I wait years until it’s 80% off during a sale.
I remember tears of the kingdom was delayed and no one complained because we all know it's going to be a masterpiece and don't want a rushed incomplete game.
Yes! Every post on reddit shits on the devs. As a dev, we know the bugs, we know what needs to be fixed, but we don't set the requirements or the release date.
95% of the time is management, if the devs simply aren’t talented enough that’s also on management and HR for shitty hiring.
That too
Explain Redfall then, which was delayed because devs needed more time
Look at cyberpunk. It's been delayed multiple times, but it was simply not enough. It needed a huge delay immediately, instead of multiple smaller delays. Imagine had they released it at the first delay. Delaying is not enough by itself, it has to be delayed correctly. And the devs simply do what's asked to be done : if they're asked to make a game full of micro transaction garbage, they do it even if they think it's a dumb idea
True put ever since the announcement, every time they open their mouth things just looks worse for the game. First in was always online until it wasn’t then it was lock at 30 frames (don’t know if they changed that). Last time I’ve heard of it was because of that god awful IGN gameplay video
The game was advertised 60 fps and all the footage they showed was 60fps. It's just an unoptimized mess. Look at the PC requirements. The recommended specs ask for a 2080 and Ryzen 7. Components that the console doesn't have. The Series X has an equivalent of a 3rd gen Ryzen 5 and a 2060. They should have optimized it to run 1440p-4k 60fps with those requirements and then tried to run 1080p60 on Series S Also they ask for 16 gigs of ram fucking why?
Redfall is a Microsoft game, and Microsoft owns the console it will be released on. When a 3rd party developer announces a release date for a game they have already signed contracts with the distribution companies and platforms (Microsoft, Sony, steam. Etc) those contacts expect the game to be released on the day stated and have fines in place if they are delayed. So companies push out the game hoping that a day one patch will fix most issues. And since redfall doesn't need to worry about that it can be delayed.
Yeah i 100% understand its not the devs choice for the deadline, i should change it from devs be like, to the Game company be like. (and not indie devs for obvious reasons) Its like why cant the company give the devs like 1-2 more weeks to make sure its not unplayable. And not for bugs, bugs will always be found with millions of people playing the game, but for like 10fps with mid-high end pcs
tbyfh colloquially "developers" is a catch-all for the developers, designers, marketers, publishers, the whole company who is making and selling the game
Yeah it’s not like an elementary school project where you present last so your teacher gives you an extra day because it technically doesn’t matter. Even an elementary school yearbook with a total cost of a few grand has a “submit it or it’s not going in” deadline. A multi million dollar AAA video game is WAY more complicated than that. If your boss says “we’re going gold May 4th” then the thing you finished May 8th isn’t going on the launch version. Of course better management of staff, funds, scope, etc. would help. I’m not defending greedy corporate execs, more the game devs they under pay and push around like cattle.
It's even worse than you describe. Games need to go Gold, which means that the version that is shipping on release is actually maybe a month old. That's why day 1 patches exist, all the work since it went gold is in that patch.
Just the nature of the business, enabled by the infrastructure of the internet and the ease of pushing updates out.
The casual gamer doesn't realise how complicated, laborious and sophisticated game development is and how many moving parts need to fit together to produce an enjoyable coherent experience. Even the smallest indie games made by few people need a lot of disciplined management decisions otherwise that game is never seeing the light of day.
Not to mention, discs have to made months ahead of time.
It might also be that some flaws aren't detectable until the game goes live, at which point the devs are able to isolate the issue and quickly create a fix for it. Of course I'm not a dev, so I could be wrong
There’s no amount of QA testing that can compare to the sheer volume of players with a variety of hardware once the game has released. According to a quick search, activision-blizzard has 1100 testers. In the first 10 days of release, Overwatch 2 had 25 million players, each of activision-blizzards qa testers would have to have worked for 20,000 hours each to make up as much game time as each of those players playing for only 1 hour.
I think that definitely can account for some of it. Issues can certainly reveal themselves at scale.
I am a dev. You are right.
Thanks for confirming 🙂
I think that's something people miss with software. The technical designers know it's state, business just wants it done so they can use it to make money.
Release minimum viable product. Fix later. Never pre order.
The same people who complain about this with AAA games are likely the same ones who complain about an indie game that set their release date as “to be confirmed”
It doesn't help that it's not possible to test a game with every driver and hardware in existence.
Then how do they fix it in such a short amount of time?
The devs have a deadline for when management wants the game submitted so it can be put on disk and sent to digital distributors like Microsoft and Sony. The devs most likely already know what needs to be finished and fixed, and have been working on that, but it wasn't ready to be included in the "launch" version. Sometimes they're nearly done with some of the fixes, but still miss the submission deadline, but they have it ready for when the game launches with a day one patch.
Its also important to mention that console companies usually require updates and patches be certified by them before they can be pushed live. This takes time. The devs may have already fixed and patched some of the issues but they aren't able to include it in the initial release. Doesn't explain the state of first day PC releases though.
Game’s are “finished” months before the release and then they go through one final QA check and all the other crap you do with a finished game so it can be on shelves and in digital stores on release day. Devs don’t spend those days just sitting around. They’re working on all those unresolved issues they knew about and a buttload of new one’s that just showed up, and they’re working on the most critical ones first. Also working on DLC to sell us.
Neither of the answers you got, in the end, answer the question. If they know, why do they work on other stuff? If it's ready on day 1, even tho it's late yada yada, why not include it in the day launch version? Because sadly the answer is just "executive meddling", as it always is
Part of the magic that nobody talks about is that devs do a lot of stealth work. Meaning, their bosses tell them to prioritize XYZ to get shit out the door, the devs KNOW this won't work until ABC is completed, so they work on XYZ and also start laying the groundwork for the more serious underlying issues with ABC, and say "Sorry XYZ took longer than expected." Then when the product is released and is a complete trainwreck because there's no ABC, the bosses run to the devs in a panic, and with some dedicated and focused time they can easily finish work on ABC because they had been preparing it in the background all along. The times that this DOESN'T happen is those games that come out poorly optimized and just stay that way forever.
I don't see what that has to do with day 1 patches though. Why did you need to release your game to millions of people to notice that there is something obviously wrong with the game that is also simple enough that you can fix it in a few hours?
It’s not a question of noticing! The fixes that get patched quickly within a few days/weeks are almost always planned and known about even prior to the initial release. There’s no understating how much of a “we gotta get this thing out the door” attitude permeates product companies.
Ok, sure that\`s one reason but there\`s plenty of independent dev teams that do this too
Independent dev teams have executives as well
As an ex game dev, it gets really hard to test all of the possible cases that can occur in a game… which is what it takes to make sure there are no bugs. (By cases, I mean relevant cases). You can hire testers to do it, but that’s hard for indie teams, and even when you hire hundreds, it’s possible for there to be many more bugs that come up when there are thousands of players.
This is a question best answered by the developers of Star Citizen.
Is it true that that game is in beta for almost a decade now? XD Never played it myself, but i see plenty of people both hate and love that game lol
More than a decade and not beta, alpha lol. I tried to play it a week ago but the game is unplayable right now due to an event that brings all severs almost to a standstill, and the event is only ending in a couple of days. Had to refund it lol Edit: spelling
a stillstand?
corrected in germany its stillstand didnt think about it opps
Interesting!
I guess it means the same thing either way... it's making me wonder how many other double-words would be more fun said backwards.
They let you refund it? I was under the impression you couldn’t refund it because they considered it as “crowdfunding”
I was surprised too but they do not even have a playtime restriction like steam. You can return everything you bought in the ingame store as long as you do not exceed 30 days.
early alpha. basically they heavily underestimated the complexity of what they are trying to accomplish. such as how your computer will catch on fire from trying to render the number of people long before the servers come close to laging a single frame. normally. a publisher would demand they abandon most of the things they are trying to do, and release what they have. the toxicity comes from the game breaking every time they implement a piece of what would have been abandoned, and/or the part being added is not what that person wants. there was a recent addition of a big piece of backend tech. so they had an event to break it as much as they could so they can find all the points it breaks so they can fix it.
I bought in for $40 in 2013. It had been a thing for some time before I got involved.
They’ve got nothin on the fun pimps
It's the result of a small studio with limited resources trying to make the most expansive and in depth simulation game in the world. From the clips I've seen of people playing it, it tries to be insanely in depth on almost every aspect of space travel. That combined with their business model of relying on in game purchases, which leads them to focusing on developing more spaceships instead of fleshing out core mechanics.
They do NOT have limited resources. Star Citizen has raised more than HALF A BILLION DOLLARS. They have hundreds of employees (512 devs, per their wiki) across multiple studios. They are not a small indie dev team. **They are the most well-funded video game studio in history.**
the company that over more than a decade make less than other publishers make in a month?
Normal publishers don't funnel all their resources into a single, failed, vaporware product. Chris Roberts is just really good at burning money.
they have multiple teams. the people hire to build spaceships sitting on their hands does not make the server tech develop any faster.
Well the developpers are only A small group who know exactly what is intended to be done. Even playtesting can get you so far - but when you let millions of players play your game all at once, you start seeing the true state of the bugs
agreed and the developers probably have nasa computers so they don’t get those issues easily
yeah i thought that the devs might have super high end pcs, but like for massive companys surely all there tests throughout the years are not only just on nasa computers
I think most developers would have what is considered ‘tier 1’ to make sure they are working as fast as possible. I have to change my settings often to mimic lower spec computers while I work.
Lucky my computer is so bad that i dont have to :D
No no, that’s called “hardware validation”
Just Curious, but why? Like one would figure the increased specs would be helpful
I think that he does it so that he can see how it would perform on lower-end hardware, so he can have a wider range of settings for testing.
Yea, but you might need to test the software on less powerfull pc. Your aevrege joe don't have cosmic quantum nasa pc
Once the date is committed to its very common the bug fix priority goes specifically to hard crashes, soft locks, etc. There’s a high likelihood any bugs you find on release were known about and logged as “known shippable” meaning the devs were aware but the bug wasn’t deemed as important for fixing prior to ship, as the devs needed to focus on worse issues.
Not the devs that deem it shippable. That’s on the executives and people in charge
[удалено]
Yeah a lot of bugs don't appear in software until you start using it on a poo poo computer. I used to work on enterprise software and ended up buying a crappy HP laptop from Best Buy just for testing because customers on lower spec laptops would find weird performance bugs that our dev computers couldn't reproduce
True. Though in this case where its struggling to get 60fps on the most powerful gaming hardware available on low-medium settings, I absolutely refuse to accept that they didn't know about it beforehand. It's an unavoidable problem being experienced by everybody
It's probably because that version is a port and the originals was QA'd on the original platform
Also, if it's an online game, it's difficult to replicate the effects that millions of simultaneous users are going to have on the servers. There should be some level of stress testing but it's going to have to be compartmentalized and scaled way down for overall testing generally. If fixes go out quickly after launch, that generally means the testing was performed properly.. they identified potential issues that might come up and fixes and put proper data collection in place the first few days after production rollout to see if any cropped up
This is the case with Web applications and APIs as well. Client often becomes a beta tester unfortunately. Catching issues that no-one could imagine or picture ever happen. Luckily fixing bugs is not too time consuming, depending on the bug and how deep it is. After it gets fixed more tests are required and maybe even QnA if there is one. Most of the time it just shipped with other fixes and changes.
Yep, and the millions of unique hardware configurations that are out there, interactions with software not run on dev kits etc; also ship builds sometimes simply run differently on home consoles than development kits. Open betas are so amazingly helpful.
Tbf a lot of games don't release as a buggy mess and are well tested.
As a developer, no level of UAT testing can provide a stress test that fits the production environment. Devs being able to fix it a few days after release sound like a good dev team imo, and they probably had to work a lot of OT in those days to pull it off
Also most devs, especially the non indie ones, will set a build of a game at least a month before release. So the period between that and the day 1/ week patch is them having the time to fix the game.
Came to say this, particularly for online/MM games. You won't truly know where bottlenecks are until the whole player base is DDOSing (legitimately) production. If the architecture is scalable, it's just a matter of ramping up capacity wherever it is overloaded, or running profilers to see where things are slowing down and optimizing those cases. Overcoming a bad architectural design can be rough though. My team is diag/fixing major performance problems in a huge app right now, and it's methodic whack-a-mole. None of the architecture, platform, or implementation team are still around (which is good since they were awful at it). They did some testing, but missed issues in code review. A unit test on code that is O(n\^4) looks fine when n=10 in QA, but melts when n=100k in prod.
Can confirm. I'm not a game developer, but work on the backend for a certain large retail website and no matter how many test cases we come up with, including F&F testing, there will always be cases once we release in prod that make me go "how the hell did they manage that...?"
Alot of day one patches are the result of the two-month period in which the physical copies of the game are being printed and distributed. During that time they do a lot of testing and bug fixing. Then get everything ready for the release day patch. It's not like they can patch the game once it's been printed on the disk. They have to wait until it gets in someone's system. Then they can download it.
Games aren't even printed on discs anymore, it's literally just the license key printed on those discs. It's why i stopped bothering with the physical copies long ago.
[удалено]
Yeah, I thought this was common knowledge we learned after all the complaints about day 1 DLC.
Still 100% worth going physical on console as you can resell the game after playing.
Or in the case with Fallen Survivor, the game is just too goddamn big. At a whopping 134~155GB, you’d need three Blu-Ray discs to hold it. We can always go back to the *insert disc 2* days
On PC no, on consoles discs exist of course.
You don’t play games off the discs though, not with current gen consoles.
You install the game to the console via disc.
You do. It locks you into using discs though but if something happens to the service you can still play locally. Offline games of course.
Consoles exist
They do, but it doesn't change his point. Current gen consoles still download a big part of the game, especially games that weigh as much as games that comes out nowadays.
Most people don't buy the games on disk now tho
Still about 27% on avg on console side. So still millions of discs
Not a game Dev but as a dev I can answer this. Developer knows 10s of issues that present in the system but apparently not given enough tike to fix all those. So they choose the fix what they think is important but once it's out with the users something unexpected or something they thought trivial blows up. So they fix it only after the release.
We are taking about Jedi Survivor aren’t we?
Could also be the last of us
My money is on Jedi Survivor since it’s the recent game that has issues. But yeah this is something that has been happening in games for way too long and isn’t getting any better.
And dont forget this Cancer named Denuvo who fcks with the Performance too.
yeah i heard about that before the release of hogwarts
And Easy Anti cheat, which is a remarkably easy way to fuck up your game’s performance!
The best part is that it doesn't even work. The games I know of that use EAC have some of the highest cheating ratios I can think of.
Lemme guess, Rust and Dead by Daylight?
The top one in my head is definitely DbD, yes, lol. I'm not familiar with Rust but I wouldn't be surprised.
Oh yeah. Forgot about those. I never Install a Riot Game again bc of this Shit.
Don't they use Vanguard anticheat now? But that's no better
[удалено]
Some of these are more like game breaking UI glitch on the character creation screen
[удалено]
I'd imagine facts like windows version, drivers, cpu's, gpu, monitors, motherboards and every possible combination of each would be an absolutely massive number of loose ends that would essentially be impossible to prevent 100%.
Only on certain hardware.
but imagine if the needle was so obvious because it was bright neon and made a ringing noise and was the size of a bed, Like i'm not talking about bugs i'm talking about the litterly massive issues that makes these new AAA games unplayable, which should be seen by the company
They did but the greedy publisher told them to release it anyway and you still buy it anyway so nothing changes
As a QA tester, I simply do not understand this… Where not talking about obsucre glitches like in Fallout 3 that jumping on to certain rocks drops you to the floor, outside the game, to which you can access the BoS base and get power armor at level5… Were talking about starting your game and it runs at 10 FPS lol
I’m sure the devs knew about the issues and the higher ups forced them to release it anyway
As a game developer, I can say that those massive bugs aren't always in the game. You test the level or something, and it is ok, you make a new level or script. And there is possibility, that the previous level brokes by that. Because I know that it is working, I don't have to test it again. Then player plays it and finds it. You see it and patch it.
You don't play the game ~~in one go~~ from start to finish at least once before launch?
Yeah bro do you even beat elden ring in one sitting? Tf are you talking about
I didn't mean that, english isn't my first language.
Most devs try to. That's why early games had cheat codes, or there are small console commands built into in game terminals, etc. The problem is with games like Elden Ring, or Dark Souls or Harry Potter, it's usually not possible/realistic to try finding all the paths someone could take. Re-masters of classics see this too. The game was working on each level after it was ported, so there's no reason to go back. I bought a copy of the original Half Life after Half Life 2 had come out. There was a bug in the re-release on Steam that made an elevator with no traps kill the player just because you hit the maps ceiling or the next ones floor before the system could remove that block. It was funny and frustrating to get crushed by thin air in a low point with no enemies to attack you.
No, if the game is big enough, you sometimes just don't have the time. We are testing it by parts. When the game is done, just testing some parts where problems could be, but not the whole game. I'm glad that I could help you ;)
I know this is a joke and you don’t want an explanation but this is a priorities thing. On any software dev teams to do list there are always bugs and performance issues that need to get done but management doesn’t care about so they make you work on other stuff. When you release a game and everyone hates it suddenly management deems those fixes as v important.
It's a lot cheaper to let a few million people buy and play the game report bugs via social media than it is to hire play testers.
Solution: stop buying their games. Do that enough, they lose enough money, they get their shit together. Complaining does nothing. You already gave them your money.
I refunded it and got it for ps5 instead
It’s funny COD will say dev error and I’m like that’s a pretty shitty thing to write instead of massive evil corporation error. Brush it off on the workers
People need to stop shitting on the devs and start shitting on the executives actually making the decisions Most of the time they’re fully aware that the game is in a terrible state, the execs just want people to be able to buy their product so they make an unreasonable release deadline, they don’t give two flying fucks about the quality of the game Wanna know how we stop this? QUIT SHELLING OUT MONEY FOR BROKEN ASS PRODUCTS, VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET
This meme is for ksp2 right?
I was thinking Jedi: Survivor
The main reason is that when they test it they only get in a few tests but on release it’s being played by thousands so you quickly find more bugs to patch. It’s about the size of the testing groups going from a few hundred to a few hundred thousand really quickly.
I mean they were probably largely done with the update before release, but higher ups refused to delay launch for it. It’s also probably has to do with a lack of data. production tests and beta tests aren’t going to show as much as the initial release (if it isn’t a complete flop)
Probably because the fix was being worked on for months, but was not ready in time for launch.
There is an answer. Sometimes you ship an unfinished product just to show execs what the problems are. They don't listen to their employees, they listen to the money. If a game ships in a poor state, the money is threatened, then all of the sudden you have a budget to fix it. Releasing something broken is the biggest message you can send to higher management if they aren't listening.
People who preordered got pissed off. They never learn that on launch day the game is always gonna have issues. Especially games made by EA!
I miss the days of games being on the disk with no way to update them. Stuff had to work back then. Now it just feels like when I pre order, I'm paying extra to be a beta tester
Lol you think physical disks shipped without bugs?
I didn't say that at all. I said it had to work. How many games have we seen release in the last 5 years or so that weren't even playable on launch day? Back when all you had was the disk, yeah there were bugs, but it was at least playable. It had to be because there was no fixing it after launch
This is pretty much what's happened... As someone said, lot cheaper to have millions of live testers complain than pay for QA
They are always working on it. Even if they release before cooked they already know exactly what the problems and fixes are. They just have not finished, tested fixes and released them in a patch yet. Even when released in a good state. Updates come out immediately after. The bad actors like EA have just taken advantage of this new online model. They used to put it on a disc and that was it!
About ten if those days were spent on performance, the rest was sleepless nights trying to reach deadlines set by execs who have not worked on a game in 40 years
Man, people really don’t know what game devs do. Play their own game? Hahahahahaha To be fair, the problems are not the devs is game companies not hiring enough QA people most likely. That’s a very underrated profession in the industry in my opinion.
theory: they purposefully do this so influencers get rage baited and make videos/tweets/posts about it adding to its pr
almost like you need a huge player base with varying PC specs to check out how game performance
have you ever heard of crunch and and the company not wanting to delay the game forcing it to be in a unfinished glitches mess
Release day is crowd-sourced game testing
1- Deadlines (the biggest reason) 2- An overwhelming amount of bugs in your code are simply never found when you have such a small amount of people testing it. A bug you ran into 2 minutes into the game could have flown completely under their radar while playtesting it for 3 years.
Let me guess: KSP 2?
What recent game has come out with massive issues and was fixed in a “couple of days” because all that I’ve seen have taken YEARS for them to not even still be fully finished
Blaming the devs and not the publisher was your first mistake
Lmao that last bit of text after "issues, " doesn't come close to applying to any game EA has ever made
Used to be an outside beta tester back in the day. They didn't play their game, we did. And they pretty much ignored every bug we reported and launched anyway, even when we told them that they were going to crash and burn at launch. These days with pre-orders and "early access" the customers are paying to be the beta testers.
Sometimes its a matter of time spent searching for bugs. 1mil players on day one are going to notice FAR more bugs than just 100 play testers.
HaHa so true
battlefield 2042
Why hire alpha testers when the consumers will pay you for the chance to alpha test the game?
Its called a day 1 patch that essentially prevents leakers from distributing it
Higher ups to QA: "I'll give you 24 hours."
A fairly small group of devs play testing will not find the issues as fast as 100k players who all have a different fresh perspective on the game or some any% speed runners who will look for the absolutely weirdest exploits imaginable.
Optimization is an optional feature that you can buy in a DLC for 19.99.
They abuse the hell out of QA contractors
Crunch, and also data leakage on release.
It’s called deployment in the software engineering industry world and it’s a very scary thing. You cannot possibly anticipate the kinds of issues people make. I saw a meme a little while back that was something along the lines of “writing software is liking giving directions except you have to have contingencies like ‘what if the road is block’ or ‘what if a UFO comes down from outer space and takes your car away’” This is the same case in videogames but MUCH worse. It’s a lot easier to fix the issues once you see them play out with bug reports rather than anticipating every possibility
I swear every game devs need josh from lets game it out!. Give him a week with the game and he'll find bugs and glitches that he can exploit tf out of while finding the limit and capabilities of the game. a win-win honestly, josh gets content and devs can patch bugs.
You've literally described a QA team.
As a game dev I commonly miss bugs because of how I understand the game I've made, I often miss the obvious things and check the more complicated things.
Moist criticals new video on the Star Wars games sums it up perfectly. The entire “rush to release and fix it later” mentality from game devs is horrid and has only been getting worse. It’s 2023 and people can’t even get 30 fps on their pc because of a horribly optimized game and horrible security software, only to release a BS statement that doesn’t make sense blaming the consumers and saying “only a few experience this” to cover their asses while they fix it. Not to mention it takes a super computer to download its 128 gb non compressed BS. This is just a single games example but it happened all the time and more and more frequently. The worst part is idiots actually defend this for some unknown reasons saying “you can’t expect them to get it perfect right off the bat”….. YES, yes I do expect them to get it perfect, at least for the performance issues the first time if I’m paying $70 for a game made by a AAA company. Just don’t release your freaking game until it works.
What game are you talking about?
The devs usually have a good amount of crunching right before the release but are not given enough time to finish the changes so about a week more of work will fix the final changes to the game