I guess I have a concern (Victoria 2 's release)

[l3illyl3ob]

Paradox's games have been buggy at release in the past. Not even Johan would argue against that. This is why switching to professional QA is a good thing.

However, I do not remember a single time where an advertised feature was not present at launch. Every game has bugs, that's why developers invented the patch. HoI3 was far from an ideal state at launch and that's really not acceptable, but at least they're doing their job and working hard at patching it into a more playable state. Surely, that's preferable over not patching it at all, isn't it?

This whole OT debate stemmed from expansions and charging for features that should have been in the original. Yet nobody has provided a single example of Paradox doing this.

 

[jdrou]

You can't tell me that you thought all of Paradox's games were exactly what was advertised the first time you played them. Some were better than others(EU I, despite the crashes, Victoria, and even EU II), but I was greatly disappoitnted in the HOI series and even EU III at first. EU: Rome was fairly problem free, but it wasn't really playable (outside of Italy) until the user mods came out. You spent most of your time waiting for a colony to grow so that you could colonize the next province.

I was talking specifically about EU3 and EU:Rome releases which Johan called 'bugfree and polished out of the box' and several people seemed to claim had major bugs or 'missing features' that were 'integral to the game'. And you made a comment about a DVD player without a laser as if it were somehow a similar situation.

And while I didn't play EU1 or EU2 until after several patches I had a lot of fun playing the earliest versions of HoI1 and Victoria despite their flaws.

How are crash bugs not "gamebreaking"?

Because you can reload from an autosave having lost only a few minutes of playing. You can have fun for many hours (even days) in between occasional crashes. If you believe every crashbug is gamebreaking, what games do you play? I don't know of many that never crash.

 

[sbr]

Did you read the quote in that post, or just decide to go ahead and respond?

Both. I read the quote in that post then decided to ask again which game is comparable to a DVD player without a laser.

 

[King]

Alright here we go, I am going to tell you nicely here. If you want to talk about the Paradox expansion policy I will happily send this thread off to OT. If you want to post expectations of what you like to see in Victoria II's release for us to read then the thread will stay here.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

King, can you confirm the release date? I know in the FAQs it says Q2, but quite a few people seem to think it's Q3...

 

[safferli]

Count the dev dairies he's promised us!

 

[Johan]

King, can you confirm the release date? I know in the FAQs it says Q2, but quite a few people seem to think it's Q3...

We will not confirm any release dates yet, but I don't think it will be in Q2.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

We will not confirm any release dates yet, but I don't think it will be in Q2.

Shame. But if it's because of extra beta testing, refining etc, then take yer time.

 

[ashandresash]

We will not confirm any release dates yet, but I don't think it will be in Q2.

I bet there are lot of good reasons for it

 

[RELee]

...For Victoria 2, we have done several things to avoid another Hoi3-style release.

#1) Better scheduling, with much longer time to just tweak the game.
#2) Not reinvent everything, but refining concepts instead.
#3) Not relying on volunteer betatesters, but using proper QA studios instead.

What's this? Another unnecessary expense? Mr. Cratchet! What have I told you about wasting money on unnecessary and frivolous expenditures? You reach in there and take that lump of coal from the fire this instant?

No! You may not use the tongs!

 

[sbr]

Shame. But if it's because of extra beta testing, refining etc, then take yer time.

Indeed. One of the things that worried me was the quick turnaround time needed for such an early release. This is good news.

 

[Johan]

Indeed. One of the things that worried me was the quick turnaround time needed for such an early release. This is good news.

For the record.. The original Victoria1 was written by 2 programmers (me + doomdark), 1 designer/scripter (greven) and 2 artists in about 9-10 months from start until gold.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

For the record.. The original Victoria1 was written by 2 programmers (me + doomdark), 1 designer/scripter (greven) and 2 artists in about 9-10 months from start until gold.

Oh, so had ye been working on Vicky2 for a long time before announcement?

 

[King]

Oh, so had ye been working on Vicky2 for a long time before announcement?

We also have a few more programmers and artists

 

[Jolt]

For the record.. The original Victoria1 was written by 2 programmers (me + doomdark), 1 designer/scripter (greven) and 2 artists in about 9-10 months from start until gold.

Well, regardless, I cheered when I read you guys will have more time to properly tweak the game, rather than develop it, beta it for bugs and boot it into the market. I also cheered when you didn't give a deadline.

If anything I'm pretty glad you haven't made Dev. Diaries so far (Besides the "Why" one), because I suppose that means you spent a lot of time brainstorming and sketching designs and concepts for the game, which in turn means a bigger amount of time where we the fans can contribute with deep suggestions, which can be implemented into the game as you guys haven't already committed to a game design path yet.

So, after seeing you guys going as far as to hire QA Studios, I guess the real question is..."Heck! Frederik is really committed to shaving his head, isn't he? "

 

[Taylor]

Seriously, what are QA studios? When I google it, it appears to be some kind of computer program for scheduling testing of software.

So it's not a particular kind of company but a piece of software. Am I correct?

So this means using a QA studio doesn't cost too much, apart from the initial purchasing of the software. Is this right?

 

[King]

Seriously, what are QA studios? When I google it, it appears to be some kind of computer program for scheduling testing of software.

So it's not a particular kind of company but a piece of software. Am I correct?

So this means using a QA studio doesn't cost too much, apart from the initial purchasing of the software. Is this right?

Wrong, although there is a piece of software called QA studios this is not what we are after. What we are looking for are businesses called QA studios who are paid to test software.

 

[Bullfrog]

would the external QA process be a first for PI? I think it will pay off, and there'll eventually be a head shaving.

 

[RELee]

would the external QA process be a first for PI? I think it will pay off, and there'll eventually be a head shaving.

Probably increase the retail price of the game as well. Just no way of knowing how much at this point, and I'm sure they won't reveal how much - not that I would be crass enough to ask. But costs such as these are always absorbed by the consumer, ultimately.

Being the Scrooge that I am, this makes me a tad unhappy. Just not unhappy enough to eliminate the happy I have over the new game.

 

[unmerged(47160)]

There are several things we are doing. We always try to listen to what this community wants for games.

Eu3 and Rome was bugfree and polished out of the box, but people were complaining they were shallow and not deep enough, so we kind of went over the top with HoI3, in making it "more more more" of everything.

For Victoria 2, we have done several things to avoid another Hoi3-style release.

#1) Better scheduling, with much longer time to just tweak the game.
#2) Not reinvent everything, but refining concepts instead.
#3) Not relying on volunteer betatesters, but using proper QA studios instead.

Out of curiosity, why are you getting rid of beta testers? Wouldn't having beta testers give you a better feel of what the people actually buying the game want?