New Features

In another thread, I suggested that SI should have spotted more bugs than they did before release. The reason I've put this as a new thread is because my reply to the quote below leads into an idea regarding the implementation of new ideas that I wouldn't mind getting people's thoughts on.

sorry but do you think for 1 moment that the guys making this game arent football fans?I bet they work all day then go home and play it.

The simple fact is programming isnt as easy as some would think,even MMo games that get patched every week still have faults and ofc need more patching,it isnt like they say "ahh sod it this will do"they release the game but things they have MISSED then get found and need to be sorted,I suggest any player that feels there are bugs and are annoyed go and report them on the bugs forum and help the devs out.

I'm sorry, and I don't mean to cause an argument, but you're wrong. Nobody minds SI missing some bugs, especially if the human user goes down an unlikely route to cause the bug (for example, if he clicks this, and then that, then does this and ends up here, etc), it's something SI weren't expecting and might cause a bug. That's fine, that's difficult to test for.

But some of the bugs, and these were the ones that really annoyed the users, should have been spotted.

I understand how difficult programming is, I'm a Software Engineer myself, and I understand how testing normally works. But in all seriousness, if I had the game for 1 hour, I'd have spotted a lot of bugs. I think a lot of bugs were reported within a few hours of the demo being downloaded. If normal users can spot these bugs that quickly, the developers should have been aware of them and should have fixed them.

I have a proposal to make for future FM games.

If SI want to add new features to games, why can't they release them as add-on modules for a selected number of forum people (say, 500 or 1,000).

For example, it could work like the following:

1. SI make FM07 which has a 2D pitch.

2. They have an idea for a 3D pitch/view.

3. They test it in house for as long as is necessary to make sure it works.

4. They create an "add-on module" and put a download link in a separate forum on here, and invite 1,000 people to download it.

5. In the Preferences page in FM07, there's a list of all downloaded add-on modules, which the user can tick. In this case, the user ticks "3D pitch" when starting a new game.

6. The user starts a new game using the 3D pitch and can therefore test it, for real, and give his feedback and bug reports to this separate forum for SI to investigate.

7. SI investigate the issues over a 1-2 month period, and at the end of that time, they collate all the results posted to the forum, make their coding changes, and then can be confident they have a working feature, tested by real users with their stamp of approval, and it can be amalgamated into the next full release of the game.

The above example can replace FM07 for FM09 and the 3D pitch for any new feature, i.e., improved media interaction, press conferences, better training, etc.

There are a few benefits to this:

- SI can release a new version of their game with more confidence about their features working.

- The 1,000 people selected can then tell the rest of the forum about the new features with a real first-hand experience of them before the release date, which will generate a realistic expectation of the game.

- SI get experience of how their new features work with a variety of computer setups/graphics cards and if they decide to not alter their coding in any way at the end of this "testing phase", they can at least be prepared for forum questions.

I can see a few obstacles to making this work:

- SI wouldn't want to give away their "new" features prior to release date because of the competitive advantage it gives them. Rivals could copy their ideas quicker.

- The different elements of the game may not be able to be broken down into add-on-able modules.

- SI wouldn't want the same 1,000 people to test every new feature because then they'd effectively have the new version of the game for free.

Some of these obstacles might be able to be overcome by people's games connecting to SI's server and the add-ons only be activated if they are on SI's approved list of 1,000 members, and after the 1-2 month time frame mentioned above, SI could delete them from this "list" so they wouldnt be able to start a new game using the add-ons, meaning they'd have to buy the game. Their saved game would have to continue though, so maybe without the add-on enabled, the game reverts to the 2D pitch instead of the 3D pitch, or to the normal media interaction instead of the enhanced one, etc.

It's just a thought put out there.

Any comments/suggestions?

If they gave away the 3D for free then people wouldn't rush into shops to buy the game.

But it wouldn't be free to everyone, it would only be released as a downloadable add-on to a few people, and it might even be a limited version of it just so it can be tested in real life, and the bugs logged.

Taking the injuries bug as an example from FM09, the demo was released "with nothing wrong with it." Within hours, the community had found issues with injuries. If these could have been logged before anything was released, then the actual release would have benefited.

Also, your point of giving it away for free, I'm sure Microsoft release versions of Office for free, and I know Adobe and Jasc Software release Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro as free evaluation versions, so it can work.

I think real-life testing using the community is the best way to find, log and eradicate bugs prior to release, and the released version quality is all anyone cares about, for their own playability and for the reputation of Sports Interactive.

People do actually sign up to beta test the game iirc. It's not just the SI programming team who do it.

SI are exploring the aspect of a larger beta team and many users on these forums will get the chance to test future code changes.

If that's the case, then that's good, I didn't realise.

I'm just surprised that the game was released with so many obvious and easy-to-spot bugs if it had gone through beta testing using real users, instead of just testing it in a "test environment". Nothing beats real-world testing.

If that's the case, then that's good, I didn't realise.

I'm just surprised that the game was released with so many obvious and easy-to-spot bugs if it had gone through beta testing using real users, instead of just testing it in a "test environment". Nothing beats real-world testing.

SI has received this kind of feedback and recently opened a thread to apply for beta testing. It has been closed but is still a sticky.

The problem is one of the beta testers might leak the game to a torrent website.

Well, give each tester a code that can only be used once to unlock the game at installation. If it's released to a torrent site, they wouldnt be able to use it, because the tester would have already used the code.

Yeah, but there's cracks for loads of games out there. All it takes is for one person to crack the game and it's gone global.

The other benefit to my idea of having some aspects of the games done as "modules", then people who don't like a certain feature, like the 3D pitch, can untick it, thereby saving system resources.

In another thread, I suggested that SI should have spotted more bugs than they did before release. The reason I've put this as a new thread is because my reply to the quote below leads into an idea regarding the implementation of new ideas that I wouldn't mind getting people's thoughts on.

I'm sorry, and I don't mean to cause an argument, but you're wrong. Nobody minds SI missing some bugs, especially if the human user goes down an unlikely route to cause the bug (for example, if he clicks this, and then that, then does this and ends up here, etc), it's something SI weren't expecting and might cause a bug. That's fine, that's difficult to test for.

But some of the bugs, and these were the ones that really annoyed the users, should have been spotted.

I understand how difficult programming is, I'm a Software Engineer myself, and I understand how testing normally works. But in all seriousness, if I had the game for 1 hour, I'd have spotted a lot of bugs. I think a lot of bugs were reported within a few hours of the demo being downloaded. If normal users can spot these bugs that quickly, the developers should have been aware of them and should have fixed them.

I have a proposal to make for future FM games.

If SI want to add new features to games, why can't they release them as add-on modules for a selected number of forum people (say, 500 or 1,000).

For example, it could work like the following:

1. SI make FM07 which has a 2D pitch.

2. They have an idea for a 3D pitch/view.

3. They test it in house for as long as is necessary to make sure it works.

4. They create an "add-on module" and put a download link in a separate forum on here, and invite 1,000 people to download it.

5. In the Preferences page in FM07, there's a list of all downloaded add-on modules, which the user can tick. In this case, the user ticks "3D pitch" when starting a new game.

6. The user starts a new game using the 3D pitch and can therefore test it, for real, and give his feedback and bug reports to this separate forum for SI to investigate.

7. SI investigate the issues over a 1-2 month period, and at the end of that time, they collate all the results posted to the forum, make their coding changes, and then can be confident they have a working feature, tested by real users with their stamp of approval, and it can be amalgamated into the next full release of the game.

The above example can replace FM07 for FM09 and the 3D pitch for any new feature, i.e., improved media interaction, press conferences, better training, etc.

There are a few benefits to this:

- SI can release a new version of their game with more confidence about their features working.

- The 1,000 people selected can then tell the rest of the forum about the new features with a real first-hand experience of them before the release date, which will generate a realistic expectation of the game.

- SI get experience of how their new features work with a variety of computer setups/graphics cards and if they decide to not alter their coding in any way at the end of this "testing phase", they can at least be prepared for forum questions.

I can see a few obstacles to making this work:

- SI wouldn't want to give away their "new" features prior to release date because of the competitive advantage it gives them. Rivals could copy their ideas quicker.

- The different elements of the game may not be able to be broken down into add-on-able modules.

- SI wouldn't want the same 1,000 people to test every new feature because then they'd effectively have the new version of the game for free.

Some of these obstacles might be able to be overcome by people's games connecting to SI's server and the add-ons only be activated if they are on SI's approved list of 1,000 members, and after the 1-2 month time frame mentioned above, SI could delete them from this "list" so they wouldnt be able to start a new game using the add-ons, meaning they'd have to buy the game. Their saved game would have to continue though, so maybe without the add-on enabled, the game reverts to the 2D pitch instead of the 3D pitch, or to the normal media interaction instead of the enhanced one, etc.

It's just a thought put out there.

Any comments/suggestions?

Thats a Fantastic Suggestion, Well done, and well wrote

id like to add my approval to this idea really, maybe each player could be assigned the data to play a different league so it was a thorough test and not just a test of the top teams?

but do you really think its just a case of a lack of quality testing this time round?

they must have known about the problems with fan confidence and low striker ratings etc

maybe im just being cynical

It's really a very good idea... so good that SI just thought of it with their recent call for Beta Testers

I do actually like the part of your idea of beta testing different modules separately, but giving it out to the first 1000 who want it wouldn't work that well tbh - they would just give it to their mates or crack it, and you have no idea whether they are actually going to give feedback. So to beta testing, to distributing individual modules to the beta testers who have been vetted and who they know will be useful, but to making it open slather. There needs to be some control.

id like to add my approval to this idea really, maybe each player could be assigned the data to play a different league so it was a thorough test and not just a test of the top teams?

but do you really think its just a case of a lack of quality testing this time round?

they must have known about the problems with fan confidence and low striker ratings etc

maybe im just being cynical

Well, it was either the testers missing obvious bugs (and again using the exaggerated injuries as an example, any tester in the world would have spotted that within an hour's play), or SI were "happy" to release a game that they knew wasn't as good as it could have been.

Either way, it's poor and something needs to be done.