Is two weeks enough before the official release?

The bugs and the patch has always been a routine issue before the official release of the FM and this year i'm sure it won't be of any different. Although most of us are prepared for the as usual bugs issues for FM11, the question here is that: is releasing of the demo 2 weeks before official release enough time to detect any bugs in the game?

I feel SI should release the demo 3 to 4 weeks before official release. At least the earlier we inform SI of any major bugs , the more time they have to fix the issues and test it. Also make the the game playeable at least 3/4 of the season instead of 6 mnths. Who knows we can detect more issues in a longer period of the season. Although we greatly appreciate the work and effort put in by SI to solve the bugs issues, it is also time to cut down the number of patches. Of course we can't expect a zero defect FM but fixing major bugs at the initial stage will greatly improve the continuety of playing the game instead of waiting for the patch and start a new game.

thats why beta testers get it mate. The problem with the general gamer reporting bugs is that, as you will see from the hundreds of "this is a major bug" threads on here, alot of people dont know what a bug is. I think SI will get hundreds of people reporting bugs that are not, they will have to investigate them all, and might miss one of the real ones!

My opinion is no, releasing the demo 2 weeks before the full version is not to shorter period

The demo isn't a beta demo, it's the final code before going to release. It isn't there for us to bug check so it's fine IMO. I also believe that it is released as soon as possible after the game has gone gold so if you want three weeks for the demo, the release date would probably go back a week.

next week demo, in 23 days game: simply

The demo isn't a beta demo, it's the final code before going to release. It isn't there for us to bug check so it's fine IMO. I also believe that it is released as soon as possible after the game has gone gold so if you want three weeks for the demo, the release date would probably go back a week.

Well we all do know that its the final version before release and the purpose of the demo is to have a feel of the game. However intial cases of the bugs or other issues have always been raised when we started playing the demo which the testers miss out. i'm pretty sure the demo has always been a platform for feedbacks given by us. Its just my small opinion so that allowing longer period for demo release may provide more feedback on major bugs and possibly reducing the number of patches..

It goes without saying that the demo will provide a completely different level of feedback to iron out the last few creases than any amount of managed final testing could do. I'm not saying that's the sole reason for the demo, of course it isn't but I bet it's still a bigger part than SI would let on to.

Without a demo, the first patch would be delayed leaving a lot more unsatisfied punters.

It's clever, and in a backwards way actually gives the community more of a sense of involvement so many people win.

I'm impressed this year with the sheer ingenuity and variety of ways in which so many people are basically begging "Can we have the demo yet?"

(goes on knees and begs)...

It's a moot point. The demo can't be made until the game is done, and when the game is done, there's not much point delaying it to give the demo an extra week... SI have always committed to patching the game to improve it if required so this is the model that I believe they like best...

I'm impressed this year with the sheer ingenuity and variety of ways in which so many people are basically begging "Can we have the demo yet?"

It is impressive, if not a little sad.

I'm impressed this year with the sheer ingenuity and variety of ways in which so many people are basically begging "Can we have the demo yet?"

I don't think people wanna beg for the demo at this stage and after all the days are getting nearer..

Well we all do know that its the final version before release and the purpose of the demo is to have a feel of the game. However intial cases of the bugs or other issues have always been raised when we started playing the demo which the testers miss out. i'm pretty sure the demo has always been a platform for feedbacks given by us. Its just my small opinion so that allowing longer period for demo release may provide more feedback on major bugs and possibly reducing the number of patches..

Last year, when the demo was released, there were several major bugs. A number of users complained and said the new testers should have spotted it, but the testers turned around and said that they had spotted it, it was just that SI didn't have time to fix it, or the fix hadn't worked. Yes, the demo gives the wider world the chance to spot bugs, but it isn't a patch on months of Beta testing.

Last year, when the demo was released, there were several major bugs. A number of users complained and said the new testers should have spotted it, but the testers turned around and said that they had spotted it, it was just that SI didn't have time to fix it, or the fix hadn't worked. Yes, the demo gives the wider world the chance to spot bugs, but it isn't a patch on months of Beta testing.

And at least SI doesn't make us fork out €60 a pop to be beta-testers for an unfinished game they've released on the market, unlike some other franchises which should be shamed of themselves. While there will always be problems with a product this complex SI do their level best to have it as good as possible on release day and it is nearly always playable out of the box.

I agree with Brian

For example, over the past month or so, many new games have been released from big companies (EA, Codemasters, Activision, etc), and I simply can't play any of them due to the states they are in

For my FPS fix, I'm playing a game that was released 16 months ago

For my racing fix, I'm playing a game that was released over 3 years ago

Hell, I still, on occasion play a game nearly 11 years old that is more fun than that most of the modern day rubbish (and bizarrely it's also way to complicated for most modern-day gamers to get their heads round)

All that usually changes is, nicer looking graphics and more gimmicky stuff with worse gameplay aspects and more bugs than some of the alpha/beta builds I used to test years and years ago

At least SI attempts to break that mould

The only other companies I know that try to are small companies who don't have the money or time to make things look really fancy, so have to have solid gameplay to sell their games