Specifically for software, there's been such a decline in the quality of final product releases, especially since the development of online update facilities.
Sure, specialised software for many businesses has long been patched with specific and required updates often pertaining directly to the needs of the customer and tied to a support agreement. In many cases this is ideal and as the customer, by the agreement, is entitled to certain service level agreements, and as such, a guarantee of fixes.
However, this trend has spilled over into the games software industry a little too much I feel. Sure, even back in the ZX Spectrum days, games had some bugs, but these were mostly minor and certainly not game-breaking.
I can understand, too, how with the advance of complexity and so many different individuals and teams of individuals contributing various parts to a game, no longer just a simple matter of "Graphics, Code and Sound", the QA involved must have a lot on their plates. Also, I'm sure producers are putting more pressure on for release now that there's a real trend for customers to "EXPECT" to wait for a PATCH after a game's release.
Why should this be the case? Are customers not entitled to a finished and working title on release?
Sure, updates are nice and there are always various changes and new ideas considered after release so the ability to update and patch games is not a bad thing, but I really am adverse to the trend where it's now become the norm that a game is released with some game-breaking bugs and customers seem happy to expect to wait for the fixing patch.
I can also understand how easy it is for things to slip[ through a net of testing, but I really don't think this is always the case.
This is generally addressing the mainstream games, independant developers, actually seem a lot more careful to ensure product quality, most likely as it's more crucial to sales.
Sure, specialised software for many businesses has long been patched with specific and required updates often pertaining directly to the needs of the customer and tied to a support agreement. In many cases this is ideal and as the customer, by the agreement, is entitled to certain service level agreements, and as such, a guarantee of fixes.
However, this trend has spilled over into the games software industry a little too much I feel. Sure, even back in the ZX Spectrum days, games had some bugs, but these were mostly minor and certainly not game-breaking.
I can understand, too, how with the advance of complexity and so many different individuals and teams of individuals contributing various parts to a game, no longer just a simple matter of "Graphics, Code and Sound", the QA involved must have a lot on their plates. Also, I'm sure producers are putting more pressure on for release now that there's a real trend for customers to "EXPECT" to wait for a PATCH after a game's release.
Why should this be the case? Are customers not entitled to a finished and working title on release?
Sure, updates are nice and there are always various changes and new ideas considered after release so the ability to update and patch games is not a bad thing, but I really am adverse to the trend where it's now become the norm that a game is released with some game-breaking bugs and customers seem happy to expect to wait for the fixing patch.
I can also understand how easy it is for things to slip[ through a net of testing, but I really don't think this is always the case.
This is generally addressing the mainstream games, independant developers, actually seem a lot more careful to ensure product quality, most likely as it's more crucial to sales.