Why Doesn't Ubisoft put these Modders on the payroll?

sav112 · 03-27-10, 04:57 PM

I do think that the Mods probably are more intune with the workings after all this time as if you say the Basic stuff is much the same. But to me if the guts of the game are much the same then why is it still so poorly bugged.

Are the Development staff different from the staff that did SHIII as it looks like they have no familiarity with the stuff as you put it under the hood that the Mod's do.

McHub532 · 03-27-10, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sav112

Are the Development staff different from the staff that did SHIII as it looks like they have no familiarity with the stuff as you put it under the hood that the Mod's do.

It just occurred to me: Perhaps Ubisoft is reinventing the wheel? They turn out a product with bugs and errors and of which is a horrid professional embarrassment and the people responsible fade off and leave the company in shame. --> They hire new people.... who make the same product with a new name on it and don't realize that the people before them made all the same mistakes and that they are only repeating history again.

I am probably wrong. I keep trying to think of why a company would not fix bugs and errors in a program that modders here already fixed. Why put out another program with the errors in it from years ago; that were fixed already?

I guess some things in life are meant to cause you to stop, blink three times, shake your head and say, "What the???".

Nisgeis · 03-27-10, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McHub532

They hire new people.... who make the same product with a new name on it and don't realize that the people before them made all the same mistakes and that they are only repeating history again.

I am probably wrong. I keep trying to think of why a company would not fix bugs and errors in a program that modders here already fixed. Why put out another program with the errors in it from years ago; that were fixed already?

It's the same people, or at least, it's the same people in the positions that matter. The question of why the same bugs are re-introduced (or never fixed) despite them being complained about constantly has never been answered in any way. The developers do browse there forums and they do take notice and it does influence them, but some things just stay broken. Why that is, I can't answer. The question was raised recently why SH5 had the same bugs that SH3 and SH4 had, but no answer was forthcoming. It's just a bit weird you know... like the bug reports are being ignored as irrelevant to the grand design. SH4's TDC was never patched to work properly and remained broken for (assuming there will be no further patches for it) ever.

pythos · 03-27-10, 05:35 PM

Very simple reason.....They would have to pay, which cuts into the share holder's dividends. Just like everything that is going to the sh*t pot. Greed.

Der Teddy Bar · 03-27-10, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McHub532

It just occurred to me: Perhaps Ubisoft is reinventing the wheel? They turn out a product with bugs and errors and of which is a horrid professional embarrassment and the people responsible fade off and leave the company in shame. --> They hire new people.... who make the same product with a new name on it and don't realize that the people before them made all the same mistakes and that they are only repeating history again.

I am probably wrong. I keep trying to think of why a company would not fix bugs and errors in a program that modders here already fixed. Why put out another program with the errors in it from years ago; that were fixed already?

I guess some things in life are meant to cause you to stop, blink three times, shake your head and say, "What the???".

And after they leave they do the only decent thing and perform seppuku

While there were and are many on the SH Dev teams who are not happy with what they were allowed to release and there is a strong attachment to the product, it is in the end a job.

As for high turn over and making the same mistakes, if that was the case then no program or programming as a whole would evolve. I work for government and we have a lot of in-house applications which are very complex and must interact with many other government agencies who also have a lot of in-house applications which are very complex we are able to continue to improve/add to the applications even though the contracted programmers come and go by the dozen.

The reason that "a company would not fix bugs and errors in a program that modders here already fixed" comes down to reviews and the way in which Ubi operates.

The people who need to hear the 'true' message are the executives. It is the executives who set the policy and procedures. Dan and the Dev team can only work within the framework set out by the policy and procedures.

There is an industry wide issue with the reviews of games and this has resulted in the executives not hearing the true message which is how your game really rates. Too often reviews score on how much we want access to your products for exclusives and/or how much you spend on advertising or if we are too honest we may not get another one.

I would also add backward perspective is needed i.e. "the submarine is still able to submerge after being hit with several 3" shells and this has not been fixed since SH3, why not?" and so on.

While Dan and others are here and at other forums this sites feedback and helps Dan & crew but does not change the policy and procedures that have resulted in the situation where none of the old invisible or even visible issues are addressed and where the development cycle only allows for releases which are nowhere near completed and introduce many new issues.

The other issue as I see it is that Ubi do not have an effective internal peer review system and/or feedback loops, again this comes back to the executives.

However obvious it may be from the outside that they need an effective peer review system and feedback loops it is hard for a organisation to see because often they are lost in the day to day operations of what they do and do not have the time and/or the expertise to be able to reflect inward by themselves and as noted above, the way in which games are reviewed compounds this as game reviews would be probably the only peer review system and feedback loops used by Ubi in this instance.

So, would you like to hear my long answer?

McHub532 · 03-27-10, 06:34 PM

Thank you Der Teddy Bar.

Seriously.. very good response and well worth reading.

mcarlsonus · 03-27-10, 06:46 PM

They need a, "PEER review" system, not a, "PIER review" system! A, "pier review" is what one does while, "peer-ing" at ones boat from the dock.

ANYWAY, back to message ---- why are there still bugs in SH5 that've been around since earlier versions! Simple! Because SH5 was built on previous versions and, like Microsoft, they never eliminated anything - whether it became a relic or not! In SH5, they simply DEACTIVATED useful stuff - didn't kill it off!

Heretic · 03-27-10, 07:07 PM

Great idea. Then everyone could bitch about how those greedy modders sold out.

McHub532 · 03-27-10, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heretic

Great idea. Then everyone could bitch about how those greedy modders sold out.

I absolutely adore the modders here. Honest.. almost bordering a bro-mance here. heh

03-27-10, 04:57 PM	#1
sav112 Gunner Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Scotland Posts: 92 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I do think that the Mods probably are more intune with the workings after all this time as if you say the Basic stuff is much the same. But to me if the guts of the game are much the same then why is it still so poorly bugged. Are the Development staff different from the staff that did SHIII as it looks like they have no familiarity with the stuff as you put it under the hood that the Mod's do. __________________

03-27-10, 05:35 PM	#4
pythos Grey Wolf Join Date: May 2005 Location: Somewhere over there Posts: 834 Downloads: 46 Uploads: 0	Very simple reason.....They would have to pay, which cuts into the share holder's dividends. Just like everything that is going to the sht pot. Greed. Last edited by pythos; 03-27-10 at 05:49 PM.*

03-27-10, 06:34 PM	#6
McHub532 Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Arizona Posts: 665 Downloads: 104 Uploads: 0	Thank you Der Teddy Bar. Seriously.. very good response and well worth reading. __________________ Thomas Jefferson - "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

03-27-10, 07:07 PM	#8
Heretic Commodore Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Nebraska Posts: 617 Downloads: 240 Uploads: 2	Great idea. Then everyone could bitch about how those greedy modders sold out. __________________ - heretic I enjoy drinking beer. MightyFine Crew Mod 1.2.1 - Updated 22 March MightyFine Less Annoying Footsteps Crew AI Scripting Information

03-27-10, 06:46 PM	#7
mcarlsonus Weps Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 362 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	They need a, "PEER review" system, not a, "PIER review" system! A, "pier review" is what one does while, "peer-ing" at ones boat from the dock. ANYWAY, back to message ---- why are there still bugs in SH5 that've been around since earlier versions! Simple! Because SH5 was built on previous versions and, like Microsoft, they never eliminated anything - whether it became a relic or not! In SH5, they simply DEACTIVATED useful stuff - didn't kill it off!