Should all games need to have mandatory QA testing before release?

[FakeSympathy]

I don't know about you guys, but I am tired of games released in a crap state. BF4, SimCity, Batman Arkham Knight, AC Unity, and Total War: Rome 2 are just some of the worst launches I've ever seen, and the publishers always comes up with the BS excuses like "Oh oops, we did not see this coming. We are sorry."

Well no more. I propose that all video games, whether by indie or AAA dev, go through detailed QA testing. Does it have any crashes? Does it have any game-breaking bugs? Does it have missing texture? Are there any unbalanced gameplay?

If the game passes the QA testing, then release on schedule. If not, then the game is pushed back to further date to iron out the problems

 

[Saelune]

Most of these games likely do, but its all in house and may be ignored or poorly done. I remember the Game Grumps talking about how Sonic Boom's QA people actually told them they pointed out many of these flaws but were ignored. No sympathy for them though. QA means Quality -Assurance-. If you don't ASSURE they listen to you, you failed your job.

Not disagreeing that games need better QA, just pointing stuff out.

 

[Musou Tensei]

I think if a bug is found and it doesn't get fixed in a certain amount of time (let's say 2 weeks) the people responsible for releasing a broken product should have to pay a hefty fine, because losing money will teach them, not the whining of the costumers who often don't learn a thing and buy the next big bug fest day 1, just to whine again.

 

[NPC009]

It's not unusual to see a bad bug in games published by NIS America and one of the explanations I've heard is that the publisher tests games on dev consoles instead of the hardware(/firmware) players will be using. Meaning a game can look fine on their end, but make players suffer through game breaking bugs. Disgaea D2 had a really nasty one that caused the game to freeze atleast 90% of the time when it showed the fire spell animation, and since you kinda need magic to play through the game... It took them weeks to patch. The European version of Devil Survivor Overclocked, published by Ghostlight, had a similar problem (game freezing when summoning a demon - a common action!) for supposedly the same reason (game not being tested on an actual 3DS).

If this is true (bugs not being caught because the software is tested on something other than user level hardware), QA alone is not enough. There'd need to be strict guidelines to follow per platform.

 

[CritialGaming]

Publishers do have QA departments. Both Playstation and Xbox have QA departments that test games before release. Hoever the console companies only test within a certain scoop. They basically test to make sure the game runs acceptably on their console so as not to make the console look bad. Functional game bugs are using ignore if they do not crash the system. This is why console games generally are more stable than PC games.

This is because the PC has no such testing. This is how the Arkham Knight shit on PC could happen.

Steam is suppose to test shit before it goes onto the store-front, but we all know how wonderful Steam is at QA. The refund system is suppose to combat this, basically making the paying public the testers, but that is also shitty.

Sadly on PC it would be hard to enforce bug fixes because the wide array of system specs running games make pinpointing bugs impossible. Therefore you couldn't realistically enforce that fine.

But what we can do, is stop buying shitty games. I know it is a sacrifice that nobody wants to make. But maybe you don't need to buy every AC game, especially since you can assume the game will be buggy shit based on track record. OR don't buy a game you know will have to be always online, even if you REALLY wanna play it. (because that's how they get you)

 

[Barbas]

Crikey, surely they already do! Or do you mean some sort of compulsory impartial testing done by a third party, with hefty fines imposed on the company if the game isn't functional? I would like that very much, especially since it'd put enough of a dent in their profits to force them to meet some sort of minimum standard. Strict guidelines, like 009 says, would probably have to be imposed on all these companies.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

QA means Quality -Assurance-. If you don't ASSURE they listen to you, you failed your job.

Not disagreeing that games need better QA, just pointing stuff out.

Speaking as someone with a lot of QA work under his belt...

QA is seen as the worthless trash at the bottom of the game development pile, and we are routinely ignored.

I have seen a LOT of shit get marked with "Known, Shippable" that shouldn't have been, especially late in the testing cycle. And if we raise too much fuss, they berate us for wasting time on something they refuse to fix, instead of spending that time finding MORE bugs (for them to not fix).

Like, when the game needs to be shipped in time for christmas, and you find a major bug that would delay the release, unless the bug will make the game fail Console Certification, they don't give a rat's ass.

Not to mention, if we MISS a bug and find it weeks/months later because it's kind of obscure to do, we get yelled at like you wouldn't believe, even if it's incredibly complicated, or something that no rational person would ever think of doing.

You think that the AssCreed Unity testers didn't make a fuss about the missing faces and janky framerate? They most likely did, because that's in-your-face-nasty. And they were likely told "We don't care, we have deadlines to meet, SHIP IT", and then the client tells you to stop whining about stuff they won't fix, or they'll take their game to a different testing company (or just threaten to fire you if the testing is in-house), most testers will prefer to swallow their complaints and let the company fall on their own sword.

 

[Zhukov]

Well no more. I propose that all video games, whether by indie or AAA dev, go through detailed QA testing. Does it have any crashes? Does it have any game-breaking bugs? Does it have missing texture? Are there any unbalanced gameplay?

Done by who?

Enforced by who?

Payed for by who?

Also, "unbalanced gameplay" is subjective.

 

[Saelune]

QA means Quality -Assurance-. If you don't ASSURE they listen to you, you failed your job.

Not disagreeing that games need better QA, just pointing stuff out.

Speaking as someone with a lot of QA work under his belt...

QA is seen as the worthless trash at the bottom of the game development pile, and we are routinely ignored.

I have seen a LOT of shit get marked with "Known, Shippable" that shouldn't have been, especially late in the testing cycle. And if we raise too much fuss, they berate us for wasting time on something they refuse to fix, instead of spending that time finding MORE bugs (for them to not fix).

Like, when the game needs to be shipped in time for christmas, and you find a major bug that would delay the release, unless the bug will make the game fail Console Certification, they don't give a rat's ass.

Not to mention, if we MISS a bug and find it weeks/months later because it's kind of obscure to do, we get yelled at like you wouldn't believe, even if it's incredibly complicated, or something that no rational person would ever think of doing.

You think that the AssCreed Unity testers didn't make a fuss about the missing faces and janky framerate? They most likely did, because that's in-your-face-nasty. And they were likely told "We don't care, we have deadlines to meet, SHIP IT", and then the client tells you to stop whining about stuff they won't fix, or they'll take their game to a different testing company (or just threaten to fire you if the testing is in-house), most testers will prefer to swallow their complaints and let the company fall on their own sword.

Don't take what I said as me putting all the blame on QA. I'm just the kind of person who doesn't stop complaining, even if I probably should, though Id probably lose my QA job right quick.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

YES.

The blatant lack of Q&A is killing games right now.

 

[visiblenoise]

Nah, people should just wise up and not buy games on release.

 

[default]

Every game already has QA testing, it's a part of the development process. Whether the developers have time to fix them is another issue. This shit is extremely complicated and the fact we have the good looking, functional games we do is phenomenal.

 

[Barbas]

Every game already has QA testing, it's a part of the development process. Whether the developers have time to fix them is another issue. This shit is extremely complicated and the fact we have the good looking, functional games we do is phenomenal.

No, the publisher should pay the price and not the already-strained development team. Hopefully it should serve as a motivation to set out a sensible development plan and leave them to it.

 

[distortedreality]

Every game already has QA testing, it's a part of the development process. Whether the developers have time to fix them is another issue. This shit is extremely complicated and the fact we have the good looking, functional games we do is phenomenal.

No, the publisher should pay the price and not the already-strained development team. Hopefully it should serve as a motivation to set out a sensible development plan and leave them to it.

What about indie developers?

This sounds like an extremely slippery slope - and, as others have already said, what constitutes a bug in this context? All software has bugs, and this will always be the case.

For the most part, I think the gaming industry is in a pretty good place regarding bugs. Yes, there are the outliers like Arkham, but that is hardly the norm. Hell, even Bethesda seem to be getting their act together these days - FO4 was nowhere near as buggy as FO3.

I'm all for a great gaming experience, but I don't think fines are the way to go at all, and could discourage innovative gaming development in the long run.

 

[CaitSeith]

Nice idea; but a little impractical to implement. Still, the industry should implement a standardized QA certification seal for AAA games. So consumers can know which games won't crash on them before buying the game.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

People should just stop buying games day one (and pre-ordering) and wait for the actual reviews and streams before making a purchase. Unfortunately gamers seem to be extremely prone to impulse buying and herd mentality, which makes it extremely easy for publishers to put out rubbish and rake in the cash. Gamers are truly their own worst enemy.

 

[Dalisclock]

If they want me to buy their games, they should. It's why I don't buy any games anymore without hearing what others have to say first(If it's a bug-ridden mess, then I either won't buy or will wait for it to get fixed and discounted if I really, really like it).

The problem is that plenty of people are willing to buy on or before launch on reputation, concept and/or pre-release press(AKA advertising), so there are plenty of companies who pretty much realized there is no reason for them to bother with QA(or letting QA do their job) if they'll still make money regardless. You reward garbage, you get garbage.