this just in: actually spending money on QA allows you to put out a higher quality product
It’s truly amazing what can happen when they don’t cut quite so many corners and release the minimal viable product.
Spoiler: It’s still really buggy.
deleted by creator
So you mean they actually QA’d the game.
Sounds impressive until you learn there’s like 5 qa employees.
Apparently with all that QA they still missed massive picture quality problems
Hey, I work in QA (not in the video game field though.) However, I can tell you there is a difference between “QA missed” and “deadlines required prioritizing other fixes.”
One implies that the employees are bad at their job. Which is almost certainly not the case. I haven’t played Starfield (or even clicked through to your link lol) but presumably this is something blatantly obvious. And I’m sure the QA team was frustrated letting a glaring known issue through.
QA finds issues but it’s up to development teams to fix them, and strict deadlines will always hamper delivering a flawless product. But deadlines are driven by management and until the industry changes (i.e. don’t preorder games) we’re going to keep seeing these problems.
But as a QA professional, please don’t blame us ✌️
This. You don’t know what’s sitting on a jira somewhere with “won’t fix” tagged to it. As an ex-QA who’s now a dev, we want to fix everything and we get told what we will and will not be fixing. When you see bugs in the final product that are relatively easy to reproduce, the story there is almost certainly that we found it and then the money told us not to bother with it because they think you’ll buy the product anyway.
Ayo what’s starfield and why is it suddenly everywhere?
Big corporate’s latest data miner/spyware diguised as a game.
While I wouldn’t put it past Microsoft: do you have proof of this?
