Question on beta testers

[pocatellodave]

I was wondering if SHIV had any ...tongue in cheek...beta testers.:-? It's just that I recall some of the sim companies using volunteers to check out their products for bugs.I never was a beta tester,as I recall it seems you needed to have a lot of credentials to get to be one.It would appear that Ubisoft didn't have beta testers,as I'm sure a lot of the bugs would have been caught.I'm sitting here thinking with the latest from Ubisoft being there may not be a 1.3 patch,and the mention of a class act law suit.Having a few free beta testers might have been a pretty good idea.I like playing SHIV,and the bugs don't bother me that much,as I'm just a dweeb,and play on 65% realism settings,but that is fun for me.This whole issue kind of reminds me of Eurofighter,and the microprose thingy.Talk about screaming for a patch.:yep: Ahhhh the glory years of simming.
Pocatellodave

[AVGWarhawk]

Simply put, yes. Look at the time line. Game went gold(off to producers for copies to sell). Game played by beta testers in the mean time. With in less than 2 days after the game was in our grubby hands the first patch was out. The developers were making the first patch while the game was being copied to DVD for sale. This rather large patch was not made in two days. It was developed by the first testers. At least that is how it looks to me.

[mr chris]

What a sorry state of affairs the devs knew how bad the game was and still let it get sent out to the stores :nope::nope::nope:

Also why we are on the subject false advertisting which is what the devs and Ubi a guilty of. SS.com is also far from whiter than white. On the back of my copy of the game it says, "SILENT HUNTER 4 IS A KNOCKOUT" Subsim.com
Well i would like to find the guy who said that of a game when we are all honest is worse and has more bugs out of the box than SH3 had. The Devs had years to fix the bugs that they knew from SH3 and really go to town on the game but instaed they have just made a pacfic add on to SH3 and called it SH4 very poor show from everyone invouled.:nope::nope::nope:

[AVGWarhawk]

What a sorry state of affairs the devs knew how bad the game was and still let it get sent out to the stores :nope::nope::nope:


Devs did not make the cut off date. Apparently preset under contract to have it on the shelves for sale on the date promised. This is how it looks. Game went out unfinished, patch in the works while they produced it. Patch out day two after sale.


Also why we are on the subject false advertisting which is what the devs and Ubi a guilty of. SS.com is also far from whiter than white. On the back of my copy of the game it says, "SILENT HUNTER 4 IS A KNOCKOUT" Subsim.com
Well i would like to find the guy who said that of a game when we are all honest is worse and has more bugs out of the box than SH3 had. The Devs had years to fix the bugs that they knew from SH3 and really go to town on the game but instaed they have just made a pacfic add on to SH3 and called it SH4 very poor show from everyone invouled.


IMHO the game is a knockout. I can think of many great things about it than bad things about it. I need basically one fix...the radar. Nothing else bothers me with it. I have three mods at the moment. Two texture mods for the interface and the reduced radio traffic mod for the clipboard. So my game is basically vanilla. If the vanilla is this good in my eyes, it will only get better when the modders dig in. They already have:up:

[mr chris]

IMHO it is a very lazy effort. They could have done so so much but they just did the bear minium to the game. Knowing that the coummuinty would take care of the rest with the great modders it holds. If the Modders here can do such a good job in such a short space of time. Why have they done so little in so much time??
Everyone around here is so fast to get in Ubi back and they do deserve the crap they get but the devs are very far from blameless.

[AVGWarhawk]

IMHO it is a very lazy effort. They could have done so so much but they just did the bear minium to the game. Knowing that the coummuinty would take care of the rest with the great modders it holds. If the Modders here can do such a good job in such a short space of time. Why have they done so little in so much time??
Everyone around here is so fast to get in Ubi back and they do deserve the crap they get but the devs are very far from blameless.

I agree. To think a game of this magnitude could be done in the time alloted by any stretch of the imagination was just bad foresight. Perhaps they thought it would take less time as they based it on the SH3 engine and half the work was done. Looked good at the time I'm sure. As it pans out, it was a bad decision. The modders can only do so much when the bug issues are hard coded. This we have to leave up to the developers. Hopefully they choose to work on it.

I'm the type of person that if I make a mistake in my business world, I do everything to correct it to the customer satisfaction and even if it costs me financially. I hope this sentiment is the same with UBI.

[TDK1044]

Yes this game was Beta tested as much as it could be given the imposed production timeline. The blame here is 100 percent with Ubisoft management and not with the Devs, who in my experience are totally dedicated to making SH4 an excellent sub sim.

This project was an 18 month project squeezed into about 12 months in order to save money. The Devs went into this knowing that the production development timeline was totally unrealistic, and hoping that they'd be allowed to heavily patch the game after release.

For Ubisoft not to authorize patch 1.3 would be totally inappropriate in my opinion.

[bigboywooly]

Well as the devs borrowed HEAVILY from SH3 it should have taken less time to build anyway

Cant see why everybody blames Ubi
Sure they may have given the devs a short timetable
Or did they ?

Whatever way it happened the devs knew the timeline and didnt finish the game
Simple
Same with SH3

Even if you get a 3rd patch whats to say that will finish it ?
Didnt SH3

[AVGWarhawk]

Well as the devs borrowed HEAVILY from SH3 it should have taken less time to build anyway

In theory yes, less time. But as one knows, one new simple idea tends to grow into many more ideas and builds from there. Thus adding more time to make these new ideas work. Looks like more ideas than time allotted.

Cant see why everybody blames Ubi
Sure they may have given the devs a short timetable
Or did they ?


Probably something that we will never know.

Whatever way it happened the devs knew the timeline and didnt finish the game
Simple
Same with SH3

Even if you get a 3rd patch whats to say that will finish it ?
Didnt SH3

I do not suspect the third patch will finish it. I suspect if it does come about, it will fix the MAJOR bugs. Not much more. These are my thoughts on it.

IMHO SH3 was completed with the major mods created. SH4 looks to be much the same.

[TDK1044]

Well as the devs borrowed HEAVILY from SH3 it should have taken less time to build anyway

Cant see why everybody blames Ubi
Sure they may have given the devs a short timetable
Or did they ?

Whatever way it happened the devs knew the timeline and didnt finish the game
Simple
Same with SH3

Even if you get a 3rd patch whats to say that will finish it ?
Didnt SH3



You obviously know very little about building a game of this nature using an existing game engine as a foundation. As for your statement 'the devs knew the timeline and didn't finish the game. Simple.' Don't you get it? The Devs work for Ubisoft. They work on whatever projects Ubisoft puts them on, just like you do whatever your bosses tell you to do.

This Forum loves to use car analogies, so here's one. You work for Ford, and they put you on a project for a totally revamped version of the Ford Explorer. Everyone knows that to do this and have no problems once the vehicle is released will take 18 months, but Ford tell you they won't pay for 18 months development, they'll pay for 12 months. Get on with it.

You can either resign in protest, or get on with it and do your very best knowing that there will be a lot of recalls on the vehicle.

If you're a game developer living in Romania, how many other jobs of that nature do you think there are for you to go to?

As I said in my previous post, this problem is 100 percent a Ubisoft management problem, and if they don't issue patch 1.3 then they should be ashamed.

[bigboywooly]

lol this forum really does crack me up at times

Say it like it is

Its unfinished and never will be
All this bollox about voting for a 1.3 patch
IMHO there is already a 1.3 patch and the minute its released Ubi and the devs go to god status again

And if there isnt a 3rd patch then Ubi deserve all they get in terms of lost sales

I only buy around 3 or 4 comp game s ayear but I have never bought a series with so many flaws on release

Even the patches dont fix things and keep needing more until all support is ceased

SH3 deserved more patches
Didnt get them
Yes the mod community stepped up and made the game a lot more playable but even now the SDK is needed to fix things and add things such as wolfpacks to SH3 - which really should have been in from the start

Are Ubi to blame for putting a Lancaster in the US roster ?
No thats the devs half assed job

Much the same as giving every nation an armed trawler in SH3 that in reality was an Isles class minesweeper
Not to mention the tug is a US fleet one

Sorry but the devs arent blameless

[tater]

Look in the mirror. YOU are the beta tester.

[ref]

This Forum loves to use car analogies, so here's one. You work for Ford, and they put you on a project for a totally revamped version of the Ford Explorer. Everyone knows that to do this and have no problems once the vehicle is released will take 18 months, but Ford tell you they won't pay for 18 months development, they'll pay for 12 months. Get on with it.

You can either resign in protest, or get on with it and do your very best knowing that there will be a lot of recalls on the vehicle.


I'm really getting tired of the "don't blame the programmer, he's just an employee" attitude, things aren't painted in black and white, there's no company that should fire personnel for telling the truth, if my boss tell's me that I have to make a one month job in 10 days, it's my responsability to show him it can't be done, If he insists in making it in that time then again it's my responsability to reconfigure the project so I be able to make it in such time, focusing on the highest priority things.
Using your example, If I have to make a new car, I first be sure that it has all four wheels before designing a new ashtray...

I work producing TV ads, and I have to meet tight deadlines every day, but if I can't produce a spot in time I don't send it to the networks without finishing it.
I also worked as a programmer some years ago, so I know the difficulties it has.

Ref

[TDK1044]

And so it goes on...and on.:D

[AVGWarhawk]

Even the patches dont fix things and keep needing more until all support is ceased

So where is the line drawn to stop the patching? It is a vicious cycle! Really, just fix the major bugs that is all we are asking. IMHO I see few major bugs but you know, this thread is getting us nowhere. We are basically asking for a fix for these major bugs. This thread could go on for days to no avail. Our energies should be going after UBI for the fix. Currently I have voted on the poll, signed Neals petition and written to UBI. If I come up with anything else I can do to foster a patch I will do so.

Oh I forgot, the devs will not be Gods again with the patch. They will be vindicated!

[Jimbuna]

Look in the mirror. YOU are the beta tester.

Good point :arrgh!:

[Ducimus]

I was wondering if SHIV had any ...tongue in cheek...beta testers.:-? It's just that I recall some of the sim companies using volunteers to check out their products for bugs.

Yes they did. Many of the beta testers, were infact from subsim.com. I, as well as a few others here (to know who they were, all you have to do is watch the credits, their listed there) were approached by the devs, asking if we were interested in beta testing SH4. NDA rules applied, so beta testers can't and wont tell you much.

While i had the opportunity, in the end, i passed on it because i didnt have the time to give it the proper attention it deserved. (that and i didnt want to burn myself out from beta, before i had the real thing in my hand). So the following statement is a guess on my part. I don't think it was an failure on beta testing, or on the testers part. Who better to test it, then some of the grognards from this very community? I think the devs knew full well the bug reports, but due to time and money constraints placed upon them by the stuffed suits at Ubi Headquarters, had to prioritize which bugs to address, and which ones to let go. I really think the devs knew fully (and probably painfully) well the state of the game when it was released.

I personally, blame the timeline and budgetary decisions made by the corporate suits more then id blame the code monkey chained to his cube trying to meet an imposed deadline.

[WernerSobe]

i dont think there were any betatesters. I havent heard of beta state and it is unusual to test single-player only games.

[AVGWarhawk]

I personally, blame the timeline and budgetary decisions made by the corporate suits more then id blame the code monkey chained to his cube trying to meet an imposed deadline.

:rotfl:

[IRONxMortlock]

Can I say it? Can I?

Told you so!
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=431515&postcount=22
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=449204&postcount=14

;)

[TheSatyr]

I think everyone who plays pc games should be a beta tester at some point in their lives. Then they would understand the relationship between devs and production companies such as Ubi. I was one for 3 years and can give you some real good reasons why the game is in the state it's in.

1)The devs were given a due date for finishing the code. And if they didn't finish by that time they would have taken a financial hit. (The company I tested for took a 250K$ hit for being a month late,which damn near whiped out any profit they would have made).

2)Just cause a product is beta tested doesn't mean the bugs will be fixed before the product goes gold. Again you have the time constraints with having to go gold by a certain date,and financial considerations. Dev companies aren't usually rich. To make a patch requires funds for paying the programmers and unless you are a company like Blizzard,that money has to came from the company that hired the dev comany. I'm surprised Ubi got two patches out as soon as they did all things considered. That shows me that both the Devs and beta testers know what they are doing,and that they have their own internal lists for things that need to be fixed.

3)I'm not sure about Ubi,but alot of these companies have to answer to stockholders which means THEY have to rush out products faster then they might like just to keep the stockholders off their backs.

Finally,the testing/patching process is a bit complicated. First you get a patch build with some fixes,test it,list which things are fixed and which isn't,then the devs put together their own prioritized list,easiest fixes first,hardcoded fixes at the bottom(From what a dev told me,the last thing they want to do is screw around in the hardcoded stuff. It's time consuming and any mistake could totally bork everything up to and including causing the OS itself to fail). Then you get the next patch build and go through the process again which is repeated till the testers and the devs are satisfied. After that it goes to the production company,in this case Ubi,whose Q/A testers spend a week or two testing the patch and they decide whether it gets released or whether they send it back to the Devs for more work.(Which is what happened with Sega and MTWII a while back. Their Q/A found a problem with the 1.2 patch and sent it back to Creative for more work).

Bottom line,it takes time and money to make a patch,and for a make or break patch like 1.3 would be, the more time we and Ubi give the Devs to make the patch, the better the patch will be. If,of course,Ubi authorizes a 1.3 patch. But I ain't going there.

[Onkel Neal]

Also why we are on the subject false advertisting which is what the devs and Ubi a guilty of. SS.com is also far from whiter than white. On the back of my copy of the game it says, "SILENT HUNTER 4 IS A KNOCKOUT" Subsim.com
Well i would like to find the guy who said that of a game when we are all honest is worse and has more bugs out of the box than SH3 had.

That was me. Go ahead, read the whole paragraph. ;) Oh, here, let me help you:

I can't vouch for the AI or deeper levels of gameplay from an hour in the Ubisoft media center, but visually, Silent Hunter 4 is a knockout. The dev team has covered a lot of ground in just nine months. They've refined and improved many facets of the game such as crew management, multiplayer, harbor activity, crew models, and radio traffic, and added new things like dynamic objectives, special missions, and most importantly, simulated the US submarine war in the Pacific theater. After eleven years, Silent Hunter is returning to do battle with the mighty Empire of the Rising Sun. This is one fight you do not want to miss.

Now, see how things look when you put them in context? :lol:

http://www.subsim.com/sh4/demo_sh4.php (http://www.subsim.com/sh4/demo_sh4.php)

[pocatellodave]

Thanks for all the comments and information.I wasn't trying to get a wheres the patch or SHIV is a buggy mess thread going.From the facts I garnered,it appears SHIV biggest problem was the time frame.The hurrier I get the behinder I get syndrome.We are soooo fortunate to have cabable modders to help sooth are woes.If I was running a sim company,I'd be having these fellas work for me,and I'll bet I could put out a real nice subsim:D
Pocatellodave

[TDK1044]

The saddest thing about all this to me, is that if Ubisoft make good sales on the game then they'll pull this nonsense the next time. And if they don't make good sales on the game then there won't be a next time.

[DJSatane]

more like alpha testers.

[mr chris]

Also why we are on the subject false advertisting which is what the devs and Ubi a guilty of. SS.com is also far from whiter than white. On the back of my copy of the game it says, "SILENT HUNTER 4 IS A KNOCKOUT" Subsim.com
Well i would like to find the guy who said that of a game when we are all honest is worse and has more bugs out of the box than SH3 had.
That was me. Go ahead, read the whole paragraph. ;) Oh, here, let me help you:

I can't vouch for the AI or deeper levels of gameplay from an hour in the Ubisoft media center, but visually, Silent Hunter 4 is a knockout. The dev team has covered a lot of ground in just nine months. They've refined and improved many facets of the game such as crew management, multiplayer, harbor activity, crew models, and radio traffic, and added new things like dynamic objectives, special missions, and most importantly, simulated the US submarine war in the Pacific theater. After eleven years, Silent Hunter is returning to do battle with the mighty Empire of the Rising Sun. This is one fight you do not want to miss.
Now, see how things look when you put them in context? :lol:

http://www.subsim.com/sh4/demo_sh4.php (http://www.subsim.com/sh4/demo_sh4.php)

Well thats not what its says on the back of my game Neal. ;)
Its says and i quote

"SILENT HUNTER 4 IS A KNOCKOUT"
subsim.com

:hmm::hmm:Do you not think that is is not slightly missleading as it does not seem to have a link on the back of the game box to the paragraph that you just posted.:shifty:
Maybe you should have held back on the sweeping statements before you had a proper chance to play the game away from the beady eyes of UBI HQ.;)

[heartc]

You will not find a company compromising their own advertisement. Ever.

Look at any game boxes where they quote reviewers. It has always been done like that, taking quotes out of context and only quoting the good parts - albeit I agree in this specific example it's pretty bad since the quote is not just taken out of context, but presented as a broad statement which was never stated as such.

Now, as a reviewer, you can either not say anything positive at all in your review because of that or live with it and trust the people know what "advertisment" means.;) And really, in my opinion SHIV is not anywhere near as bad as the hysterical masses get themselves hyped up on.

[cunnutazzo]

I have a dream: a Silent Hunter Foundation, with "original" devs personnel and programmers paid by us. I think those men in Romania have a great passion for their job and are getting not so much money for their hard work.
I think that the SH series enthusiasts in the world would appreciate this project: no more broken projects, heavy collaboration between devs and modders, open projects for technical, informatic and historic updates and upgrades. And more, more, and more...

Ok, it's just a dream...

[VonBlade]

Well thats not what its says on the back of my game Neal. ;)
Its says and i quote
"SILENT HUNTER 4 IS A KNOCKOUT"
subsim.com
:hmm::hmm:Do you not think that is is not slightly missleading


Well duh.

Mr Stevens could have written "The sheer volume of bugs and unfinished features in Silent Hunter 4 is a good enough reason to knock you out of purchasing it and go upto UBI with a pitchfork and a torch".

Yet you could still edit it to read "Silent Hunter 4 is a knockout".
VB

[mr chris]

Open your eyes Von****head oh and why your at it try and pull your tounge out from Neal ass:up:

Not everyone around here is so scared to voice there opinons.

[VonBlade]

Open your eyes Von****head oh and why your at it try and pull your tounge out from Neal ass:up:


I'm not putting my tongue anywhere. I'm stating that games developers always butcher a game comment to make it seem like something that's loved. It's not directed at Mr S, but at UBI.

<insert further asterisked out abuse here>

[Gizzmoe]

Thread closed.

[Onkel Neal]

Open your eyes Von****head oh and why your at it try and pull your tounge out from Neal ass:up:

Not everyone around here is so scared to voice there opinons.

Well, you won't be voicing yours for 30 days, my friend. I think you should read the FAQ, vulgar remarks and persistent trolling will earn you some time with a potato peeler. And when/if you return, if you start off wrong, you'll be keelhauled. :-?

As a game reviewer, my public comments may be quoted by game companies to sell their product. Unless you are really new to this, it should not be a surprise. In my review, I listed a lot of the shortcomings of the game and it's unfinished state. To achieve our objective (persuade Ubisoft to authorize additional work on SH4), I feel acting like a hothead or a loudmouth is counterproductive. If you want something done, you have to set about it in the most effective manner possible. If Ubi heard 1000 sane, mature, and reasonable SH4 customer argue for additional work to enhance sales, it has a better chance of coming about than 1000 raving forum nuts all shouting about suing and boycotting.

Neal