And I and many others didn’t experience anything of substance really ever. That’s the nature of wide variety in play. It’s literally not possible for QA to test it all. There isn’t enough budget in the world.
It should definitely not have been delayed a year. Ignoring that the first 24 hours after launch provides more testing than a decade of a massive QA budget, it was very obviously ready and the vast majority of people had a great time. (Which is why the hype went immediately through the roof effectively as soon as it launched.)
Of course, if you got lucky you missed bugs but there were still a lot of poorly made systems that bled over from DOS2 that they didn’t bother to update. With the size of the patch notes following release, some having a good experience isn’t really a counter-point.
As I said though, they could have used early access better because it definitely wasn’t ready, it was passable (well ignoring game-breaking bugs a lot of people ran into to). And why would you be opposed to a game being developed a bit longer if it means a better experience for all?
It’s not “lucky” when there were 100 satisfied customers for every complaint.
I’m opposed to waiting for a very clearly ready game to satisfy some nitpickers, especially when having the game in players’ hands massively accelerates the testing timeline. If you wanted it a year late and “polished”, you could have bought it a year later and had it “polished”, without punishing everyone else over your unrealistic expectations. And you’d save money on top of it.
Crazy how people wanna gloss over issues just because they like something generally. I’ll never understand why people wouldn’t want a better product. Absolutely mental take too there at the end. Have a good one.
Later is meaningful negative value, and again, the product you get on the same date is almost always better if a finished and reasonably polished game of that scope is released to the public and uses the public feedback to help improve bug detection.
And I and many others didn’t experience anything of substance really ever. That’s the nature of wide variety in play. It’s literally not possible for QA to test it all. There isn’t enough budget in the world.
It should definitely not have been delayed a year. Ignoring that the first 24 hours after launch provides more testing than a decade of a massive QA budget, it was very obviously ready and the vast majority of people had a great time. (Which is why the hype went immediately through the roof effectively as soon as it launched.)
Of course, if you got lucky you missed bugs but there were still a lot of poorly made systems that bled over from DOS2 that they didn’t bother to update. With the size of the patch notes following release, some having a good experience isn’t really a counter-point.
As I said though, they could have used early access better because it definitely wasn’t ready, it was passable (well ignoring game-breaking bugs a lot of people ran into to). And why would you be opposed to a game being developed a bit longer if it means a better experience for all?
It’s not “lucky” when there were 100 satisfied customers for every complaint.
I’m opposed to waiting for a very clearly ready game to satisfy some nitpickers, especially when having the game in players’ hands massively accelerates the testing timeline. If you wanted it a year late and “polished”, you could have bought it a year later and had it “polished”, without punishing everyone else over your unrealistic expectations. And you’d save money on top of it.
Crazy how people wanna gloss over issues just because they like something generally. I’ll never understand why people wouldn’t want a better product. Absolutely mental take too there at the end. Have a good one.
Removed by mod
Most people didn’t have issues.
Later is meaningful negative value, and again, the product you get on the same date is almost always better if a finished and reasonably polished game of that scope is released to the public and uses the public feedback to help improve bug detection.