Sort it out SI

[dking]

Hmm.. when did I get personal? - because I said you need to get out more? If what I said in that sentence is true, then you really need to get out more.. its nothing "personal" about it.. its not like I said you were an idiot or anything.

What I think is simply childish and pointless of your post (again.. not personal.. I dont think YOU are childish and pointless.. just your post is ) is that you actually think that SI leaves bugs in the game and then avoid talking about them. I can assure you they keep track of ALL known bugs and often comment on threads on the forums regarding said bugs. Of course they dont comment on ALL threads, but I would bet money on that they have commented on at least 1 thread on each bug. Remember that most bugs have probably generated 10's or 100's of threads on the forums over time.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion on FM and of course there is NOTHING wrong with posting a thread much like this one. The thread even started just fine, but then you start to write things like "inexcusable" and "Sort it out SI" and "unforgivable" and not to forget: "So they've never really finished the game before churning out an add on or an up date which they have the cheek to call 'a new game'.".. well then you come across in a negative way and makes you look more like one of those "I lost against a smaller team and therefore the game is crap". Just say what you feel is wrong and let SI look into it.. and then keep the "inexcusable" and "unforgivable" nonsense to yourself as it wont help you or your post in any positive way.

Are you a mod? No, I didn't think so. You're also entitled to your opinion but don't start trying to tell me how I should write my posts.

You have absolutely no idea if all bugs are commented on or looked into and you have absolutely no facts to back up your theory.

I come across in a negative way in one of my posts? No **** sherlock, maybe thats because I'm being negative! and that somehow leads you to believe that I'm a "I lost against a smaller team and therefore the game is crap" type person?

I've heard some nonsense spouted in these forums before, but I have to say, your post is right up there along with the guy who says "SI leave in bugs on purpose".

[asdpoo]

Dude, I'm not a native speaker and maybe I didn't express myself correctly. I don't mean they leave them on purpose to annoy us, but that they leave them because then can get away with it and instead spend their time on more profitable activities. If there was a close competition they wouldn't ignore such obvious bugs.

[Neil Brock]

FM being what it is, it's likely to have bugs in it. That doesn't mean we slack off and don't put the hours in. We only have so many pairs of eyes and our coding team has only so many pairs of hands. We play the game ourselves so it'd never be in anyone's best interests to make the game anything except as good as it can be. Someone mentioned earlier that there's not many companies that are still working on patches four months after release - I don't want to come across as arsey but surely that's should be looked upon as a good thing for us? There's many games I've played where as soon as it's out the door it's done, bugs or not. I'm not trying to make excuses but we do care about what you guys and our fanbase thinks, I wouldn't be sat here at 12am in the morning addressing you if I didn't.

We do comment on a bloody lot of threads within the bugs forum and I'd be surprised if there were many that have been posted that we're not aware of in one way or another. We love having a community as vocal as you guys because if something is unacceptable we can count on your to let us know that the second you get the game. We know we can't afford to slip up, we can't afford to let the fans down. We hope you've enjoyed FM11 and hope you'll continue to enjoy any future versions of the game. Sadly there may well be one bug that somebody notices within the game that really bugs them, be it a minimum release clause issue in Spain or a news item appearing when it shouldn't - but if you let us know via the Bugs Forum we'll most certainly look into it. I can't remember what my original point was with this, the jist is, we try to sort it out. That's the SI way.

[asdpoo]

SI being active on these forums is one thing I admire.

But since you are on record I don't expect you to say "Yes, we know about these things, but we can't fix them, because the management knows the game will sell anyway and private firms are run for profit." After all, you need new features to advertise the next installment and that puts other things down the to-do list.

I believe I've made my point clear and don't see a point arguing any further. We are entitled to our opinions. Let's hope things introduced in FM2011 get better in FM2012

[NeilUK]

@asdpoo

What you said about what you think SI does and thinks of it's customers is "your opinion" yet you state it as fact and then say "there's no point arguing". Hardly democratic to state your point and then to say "don't argue!"

Put simply if you hate what SI do so much, don't buy their game, buy another game from someone else that doesn't have bugs but good luck finding it. Crysis, Crysis 2, Fallout 3 and New Vegas, Civ 5 and all the other great games out there all have bugs. SI just admit it others don't, Ubisoft still refuse to admit that only 9 of the 18 Jackal tapes are attainable after a patch "broke" the game. EA Sports do 2 patches, regardless of whether that fixes the game or not. A bug free game doesn't exist, even the Solitaire, a simple game free with Windows has a bug in it. SI just make it possible to contact them and make them aware, tell me how you complain to EA or Ubisoft and tell them of their bugs? They never read their Forums...

[asdpoo]

NeilUK, I say I won't argue, because obviously I won't change anybody's opinion and you won't change mine, therefore it is pointless to argue. Damn, are language constructs that different?

I agree with you, but because somebody is worse doesn't mean you have to be like them. Civ 5 sucks btw.

[StevoRobbo]

Si do listen to their customers a hell of a lot, and after reading stuff on sortitoutsi, I know they are taking extra steps to talk to the wider community more so kudos for that. What I dont agree with however is what Neil Brock said about "Someone mentioned earlier that there's not many companies that are still working on patches four months after release - I don't want to come across as arsey but surely that's should be looked upon as a good thing for us?" Thats a yes and no point IMO. Yes it is good that you still provide patches. And here im talking about the .3 patch mostly with the update. But deep down I think the guys at SI know that if they didnt release the .1 and .2 patches, and didnt it for a few years, they would certainly lose a hell of a lot of sales. How much does this forum alone contribute to sales? And im talking about the die hards here. If SI didnt release patches, to fix quite frankly bugs which shouldn't really be there in the first place (i.e Spain yellow card issue), they would lose a hell of a lot of people. So in a way, releasing patches 4 months after release to fix bugs which really shouldnt be there isnt really a good thing.

[thesandman]

I don't think I've ever bought a CM or FM (in the internet age anyway) until at least the second patch has been released.

I understand in a game as massively complex as this there will be issues, but having reasonably prominent bugs still in the game after a few years of them being apparent and noted is IMO poor form. Just because they're not game breakers doesn't mean they aren't important.

There has to be a line drawn though when a company stops fixing bugs in the released game, and starts moving onto the next one, I don't think anyone disputes that.

[MrPompey]

Can't keep him, because he is in the last year and asking for too much money.

milnerpoint, right after the bolded part is the "why".

wally13, I actually have an idea and I'm used to higher standards.

In your opening post you say he is a recent arrival....did I read this right? Is he not on a contract greater than 12 months or is this what the issue is?

Too late now perhaps but did you try to offer an improved salary. As in real life extra money often alleviates so called ambition....Rooney anyone?

[Herter]

Are you a mod? No, I didn't think so. You're also entitled to your opinion but don't start trying to tell me how I should write my posts.

You have absolutely no idea if all bugs are commented on or looked into and you have absolutely no facts to back up your theory.

I come across in a negative way in one of my posts? No **** sherlock, maybe thats because I'm being negative! and that somehow leads you to believe that I'm a "I lost against a smaller team and therefore the game is crap" type person?

I've heard some nonsense spouted in these forums before, but I have to say, your post is right up there along with the guy who says "SI leave in bugs on purpose".

.. I give up.. I'll leave your case to the social workers.. they'll have their hands full with you..

[Brian Shanahan]

Now you're just being pedantic.

No dking pointing out you spell "independently", "independantly" or the plural of Roman in Latin is Romani not Romanes for example is being peantic. Pointing out that you are contradicting yourself on a major crux of your arguement is not however. It is in fact called "demolishing your arguement, through the use of logic, reasoned argument and evidence". Big difference between the two, and trying to disguise one as the other is only hurting your own arguement as it shows you unwilling to engage in proper debate.

[Brian Shanahan]

SI has a really terrible record at fixing bugs. So I'm not holding out much hope that this will be fixed.

Like who? Bethesda, with 2 games (in my experience, there's probably a lot more from that stable) which are still massively broken (up to and including game breaking) in places despite having 7 patches for FO3 and 4 and counting for FONV?

Or how about 2K/Firaxis who needed 70 patches for the base game and 19 for the final expansion in Civ 4 (not all admittedly released but all were designed) or for Civ 5 releasing a game that would better be described as a collection of bugs ruined by an inadvertently attached game. Their current patching strategy is to say that bug filled features (e.g. research agreements) play as they were meant to, pull the nerf-hammer on any strategy they don't want that proves successful despite their earlier efforts to strait-jacket gameplay, and ignore every other problem there is?

Even ancient games which had less than 10MB of code , like MOO (the grand-daddy of space strategy games) needed multiple patches, in MOO's case 3 official and numerous unofficial.

[BossAsianMafia]

Like who? Bethesda, with 2 games (in my experience, there's probably a lot more from that stable) which are still massively broken (up to and including game breaking) in places despite having 7 patches for FO3 and 4 and counting for FONV?

Or how about 2K/Firaxis who needed 70 patches for the base game and 19 for the final expansion in Civ 4 (not all admittedly released but all were designed) or for Civ 5 releasing a game that would better be described as a collection of bugs ruined by an inadvertently attached game. Their current patching strategy is to say that bug filled features (e.g. research agreements) play as they were meant to, pull the nerf-hammer on any strategy they don't want that proves successful despite their earlier efforts to strait-jacket gameplay, and ignore every other problem there is?

Even ancient games which had less than 10MB of code , like MOO (the grand-daddy of space strategy games) needed multiple patches, in MOO's case 3 official and numerous unofficial.

Excuse me for hoping that SI hold themselves to a higher standard. Squad AI issues, International fixture clashes, corner bugs... these bugs have been there for years.

[milnerpoint]

Yeah because every version of Warcraft has been perfect on day of release.............

[x42bn6]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You as a customer should never need to defend the presence of bugs.

[Herter]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You as a customer should never need to defend the presence of bugs.

Its not about defending the presence of bugs.. Its about teaching people about what it is like to build software and how bugs will ALWAYS be in the software no matter how much you test and fix bugs. Well perhaps they COULD iron all bugs out, but then they'd go bankrupt and there would no more FM.

[dking]

No dking pointing out you spell "independently", "independantly" or the plural of Roman in Latin is Romani not Romanes for example is being peantic. Pointing out that you are contradicting yourself on a major crux of your arguement is not however. It is in fact called "demolishing your arguement, through the use of logic, reasoned argument and evidence". Big difference between the two, and trying to disguise one as the other is only hurting your own arguement as it shows you unwilling to engage in proper debate.

Who's demolished my argument through the use of logic and evidence? I must have missed that. And how can me saying I'm not happy with something some how be demolished through the use of logic and evidence? Well, it can't can it, because it's my opinion.

Everybody is entitled to there opinions and I'm more than happy to get into a debate as long as people don't talk nonsense or get personal.

And what does your post have to do with this thread? You've added absolutely nothing to the thread, with your post, yet you talk about contradictions and engaging in proper debate? Brilliant.

[x42bn6]

Its not about defending the presence of bugs.. Its about teaching people about what it is like to build software and how bugs will ALWAYS be in the software no matter how much you test and fix bugs. Well perhaps they COULD iron all bugs out, but then they'd go bankrupt and there would no more FM.

Do you know something about the financials of SI to justify such a statement?

Either way, saying that "software always has bugs" is defending the presence of bugs. "Software always has bugs" is an excuse for bugs existing - and it's a shoddy one.

Yes, bugs will always exist in software. It doesn't mean, however, that we can't demand for bug-free software, because bug-free software should be one of the ultimate aims of the game.

It's like many nasty things in life... Idiots cutting between lanes when driving, murder and so on - these will realistically never be eradicated, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for a society where people don't drive like idiots or kill each other.

The fact is that some people are unhappy at what they perceive as "obvious" and/or "glaring" bugs. They don't really care about software design or "that's how it is" - they care about "that's how it should be" - and as customers, they are right. Always.

[Herter]

Do you know something about the financials of SI to justify such a statement?

- Would statements from SI saying just that count?

Either way, saying that "software always has bugs" is defending the presence of bugs. "Software always has bugs" is an excuse for bugs existing - and it's a shoddy one.

Yes, bugs will always exist in software. It doesn't mean, however, that we can't demand for bug-free software, because bug-free software should be one of the ultimate aims of the game.

- Its not an excuse.. its a fact. Of course they, as all programmers do, strive to fix all bugs in the game. Any programmer that thinks he can realistically remove any bugs in a software application as complex as FM is either naive or just has never seen complex code on that level. You just accept that bugs will exist and then you try your best to fix them.. Some you leave in if they are not prioritized highly, but for most bugs you always try to fix them, if there are ressources to do so.

It's like many nasty things in life... Idiots cutting between lanes when driving, murder and so on - these will realistically never be eradicated, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for a society where people don't drive like idiots or kill each other.

- Has anyone said that SI dont try to fix bugs? - All I said was that bugs will always be there.. just accept it. They surely will fix what they can if time and ressources allow this.

The fact is that some people are unhappy at what they perceive as "obvious" and/or "glaring" bugs. They don't really care about software design or "that's how it is" - they care about "that's how it should be" - and as customers, they are right. Always.

- The customer is FAR from always right.. actually in most cases customers are wrong. As a professional programmer myself I know this to heart.. There is nothing more clueless than the customer actually. They can set demands, but in most cases have no idea how difficult or easy things are to do and when you deliver what they requested they'll come back and complain that they didnt need some things anyway and they want to change this and alter that.. - But I agree that no matter that (almost) you have to listen to the customer as he pays your salary at the end of the month..

no players were injured when writing this reply

[x42bn6]

1) Possibly.

2) It's still an excuse. The solution is to fix the bugs. Bugs shouldn't be excusable. To a consumer, they don't care about the complexities of writing software - they want a perfect product.

The alternative is, of course, to increase test coverage and throw more bodies at testing. Plausible? Why not?

3) As a programmer, how can you have that attitude? You build software for your customers - they are right. You want customers, do you not? How can you have customers if you think most of them are wrong?

Customers can certainly be unreasonable, but they are simply unreasonable customers - i.e. they are still customers. Not all customers are angels.

All the situations you describe below (customers going back on their requests) all smacks of a lack of interaction with your customer - you don't know what they wanted in the first place. They are still right to demand whatever they want, based on what they think you will deliver - it is your job to ensure that the product remains what they want throughout the course of the product development cycle.

The only customers that are wrong are customers that you don't want to customers any more - the abusive, those who want to turn the product into something else entirely and they are in a tiny minority, or those who are unlikely to buy your product anyway for whatever reason.

But to me, having a product that doesn't have glaring bugs (i.e. statistics going missing) isn't unreasonable in any way. In fact, that bug smacks of a lack of unit testing.

[Herter]

2) It's still an excuse. The solution is to fix the bugs. Bugs shouldn't be excusable. To a consumer, they don't care about the complexities of writing software - they want a perfect product.

The alternative is, of course, to increase test coverage and throw more bodies at testing. Plausible? Why not?

It costs money.. testing isnt free - as far as I know SI have tested each verison of FM at least the same, but often more than the previous version. So they do try to expand their testing capabilities.

3) As a programmer, how can you have that attitude? You build software for your customers - they are right. You want customers, do you not? How can you have customers if you think most of them are wrong?

How I can have that attitude? - its called being rational and realistic. Of course customers have the right to request whatever they like, but its not my job to serve them what they want, no questions asked. Its my job to make the software work according to the requirements. If customers dont like the requirements then it is their problem and they are free to purchase another product instead. That said, then of course the requirements are defined according to what customers want and of course any programmer will try to produce a product that lives up to the expectations of customers. It is just naive to think that that is possible.. there will always be a bug or 1000, a feature that didnt get finished, requirements changed, unhappy customers.. its just a part of the software dev. world. Doesnt mean I dont care about customers..

Customers can certainly be unreasonable, but they are simply unreasonable customers - i.e. they are still customers. Not all customers are angels.

I agree.. and not all programmers are angels either

All the situations you describe below (customers going back on their requests) all smacks of a lack of interaction with your customer - you don't know what they wanted in the first place. They are still right to demand whatever they want, based on what they think you will deliver - it is your job to ensure that the product remains what they want throughout the course of the product development cycle.

I think you are mixing things up here.. SI's customers are NOT entitled to require ANTHING from the next FM.. since they have NOTHING to do with the game until it is finished.. they can however REQUEST features and such. In ofter cases, where the customers ORDERS a software product from you, you have to comply to all (realistically) requirements, I agree.

The only customers that are wrong are customers that you don't want to customers any more - the abusive, those who want to turn the product into something else entirely and they are in a tiny minority, or those who are unlikely to buy your product anyway for whatever reason.

Many many many customers that you still want can still be very very very wrong on many things.. f.ex. such as those customers that want SI to allow managers to buy houses, cars and such for their wages.. should SI listen to these requirements? No!.. why? - well first, because the "customer" has NO SAYING in the requirements and secondly, the feature request is silly and is rightfully ignored.. but yes the customers is welcome to request such features, but SI are NOT entitled to do as the customer says.

But to me, having a product that doesn't have glaring bugs (i.e. statistics going missing) isn't unreasonable in any way. In fact, that bug smacks of a lack of unit testing.

Partly agree.. SI could do better yes, but I think they do a very good job at testing. In my work we test alot more that we develop and still many bugs, even huge ones get through.. simply because there are 1000000's of different variable constellations and one single can break the software.. it is impossible to test them all so some are found in runtime. Thats why with millions of customers some bugs are only seen by a handful of people. Some are even never seen, simply because the chance of them happening is so small.. such bugs are VERY hard to find in testing.

Still no players injured in writing this reply..

[x42bn6]

It costs money.. testing isnt free - as far as I know SI have tested each verison of FM at least the same, but often more than the previous version. So they do try to expand their testing capabilities.

I'm not sure this is the case since 11.3 has more glaring bugs than 10.3, which had more than 7.0.2 - I think testing coverage is getting worse.

Besides, we shouldn't need to worry about how much something costs on SI's side. We don't control their budget. We are under no obligation to give them money.

How I can have that attitude? - its called being rational and realistic. Of course customers have the right to request whatever they like, but its not my job to serve them what they want, no questions asked. Its my job to make the software work according to the requirements. If customers dont like the requirements then it is their problem and they are free to purchase another product instead. That said, then of course the requirements are defined according to what customers want and of course any programmer will try to produce a product that lives up to the expectations of customers. It is just naive to think that that is possible.. there will always be a bug or 1000, a feature that didnt get finished, requirements changed, unhappy customers.. its just a part of the software dev. world. Doesnt mean I dont care about customers..

This doesn't mean that the customer is wrong. It means the customer was right. It also means the customer is frustrating.

Your job is to turn specifications (not requirements) into software. Your job is to serve them - full-stop. If something goes wrong down the line, such as a bug or unfinished feature, it is your problem - not the customer's. The customers are right - your team did something wrong, for whatever reason.

Certainly, if there are budget constraints (i.e. the customer is obligated to pay), then there will be some form of negotiation on what is feasible. However, the customer is right. Always.

I think you are mixing things up here.. SI's customers are NOT entitled to require ANTHING from the next FM.. since they have NOTHING to do with the game until it is finished. .they can however REQUEST features and such. In ofter cases, where the customers ORDERS a software product from you, you have to comply to all (realistically) requirements, I agree.

I'm not sure what "they have nothing to do with the game until it is finished" means, since customer feedback and questioning is always going to be important through out the process. This is why SI put demos out, after all.

Either way, it's semantics, really. Some customers may deem certain things to be requirements, otherwise they won't buy the software - they are entitled to require things - they are potential customers who won't buy the software if it doesn't meet their requirements. Some may request features but will buy it anyway; some will request things but won't buy it for whatever reason. A requirement is merely a stronger version of a request - and we are entitled to strong requests. Look at DLR.

Developers code to specifications, not requirements; for that reason, we can put pretty much any requirement (or request) forward, as we are entitled to do so.

Many many many customers that you still want can still be very very very wrong on many things.. f.ex. such as those customers that want SI to allow managers to buy houses, cars and such for their wages.. should SI listen to these requirements? No!.. why? - well first, because the "customer" has NO SAYING in the requirements and secondly, the feature request is silly and is rightfully ignored.. but yes the customers is welcome to request such features, but SI are NOT entitled to do as the customer says.

Why do these customers have no say in the requirements? Their requirements are that the game employs a manager RPG. Whether the requirement is nonsense or not is immaterial - it is a requirement from a certain set of customers.

The customer is still right. SI's game does not cover a broad enough set of features to satisfy these customers - SI are wrong.

However, of course, there are other things that are important besides satisfying 100% of customers, such as overall game direction. But the customer... Is always right.

You're confusing entitlement with correctness - the customer is always right, but SI are entitled to say no. Both are mutually exclusive. I'm right to demand a crime-free United Kingdom - the government is entitled to say that's almost impossible to guarantee.

[BossAsianMafia]

Its not about defending the presence of bugs.. Its about teaching people about what it is like to build software and how bugs will ALWAYS be in the software no matter how much you test and fix bugs. Well perhaps they COULD iron all bugs out, but then they'd go bankrupt and there would no more FM.

I can live with the occasional bug in FM. What really bugs me (pun intended) are the annoying bugs that exist for many many versions.

Surely given so many years, these bugs should have been fixed?

[milnerpoint]

I'm not sure this is the case since 11.3 has more glaring bugs than 10.3, which had more than 7.0.2 - I think testing coverage is getting worse.

What kind of numbers are we talking about here? If you can make a statement like that you must be able to answer that quite easily?

[Johnjo]

The issue seems to be the new features,

The pattern is:

1. Introduce new feature

2. Get new feature actualy working or remove it in the next version of the game

3. ??????

4. Profit

It was the death of the madden franchise mode, People still bought Madden but the game was absolutly pants. Would be a huge dissapointment if SI went down this route.

I don't like to attack beta testers as I have done some myself but stuff like has been mention realy shouldn't have been missed.

[milnerpoint]

Who said it was missed? Read what was said, there is not always time and money to fix everything, so minor issues go to the bottom of the pile, there is no way for us to know all of what they did fix before release day.

[Kriss]

The bug list for FM11 on release day had the lowest total bug count for any version, I have that on the highest authority.

However as with all stats it's highly subjective because what really counts to the user is the impact of any particular bug on their game.

It's a bit silly to get pedantic over all this tbh, SI don't deliberately put bugs in, they do sometimes leave known bugs in (prioritisation system/time constraints etc) that's normal for a software developer.

They always deal with critical bugs (critical is again a subjective description)

The fact that some problems still seem to exist doesn't mean they haven't had attention.

I'm thinking in particular of the "corner bug" here, Paul C spent an awful lot of time and effort on this one and while it definitely improved it's still at a "best case we can get to atm" stage I'm pretty sure, meaning it's possibly exploitable under certain circumstances.

As long as people report bugs in the requested manner they have every right to ask questions if there isn't a fix, however they're wrong if they attribute it to laziness or lack of caring on the part of SI.

[wally13]

The bug list for FM11 on release day had the lowest total bug count for any version, I have that on the highest authority.

However as with all stats it's highly subjective because what really counts to the user is the impact of any particular bug on their game.

It's a bit silly to get pedantic over all this tbh, SI don't deliberately put bugs in, they do sometimes leave known bugs in (prioritisation system/time constraints etc) that's normal for a software developer.

They always deal with critical bugs (critical is again a subjective description)

The fact that some problems still seem to exist doesn't mean they haven't had attention.

I'm thinking in particular of the "corner bug" here, Paul C spent an awful lot of time and effort on this one and while it definitely improved it's still at a "best case we can get to atm" stage I'm pretty sure, meaning it's possibly exploitable under certain circumstances.

As long as people report bugs in the requested manner they have every right to ask questions if there isn't a fix, however they're wrong if they attribute it to laziness or lack of caring on the part of SI.

I guarantee x42bn6 will reply with a big fancy post with big words to prove you wrong or disagree with you on this

[milnerpoint]

I guarantee x42bn6 will reply with a big fancy post with big words to prove you wrong or disagree with you on this

Of course he will, he is a customer and they are always 100% correct, no matter what they say remember.........

[Kriss]

Now, now girls, he might have a way of putting it that winds you up but he isn't entirely wrong. (he isn't entirely right either of course;))

[wally13]

Now, now girls, he might have a way of putting it that winds you up but he isn't entirely wrong. (he isn't entirely right either of course;))

I could't resist

[milnerpoint]

Im bored at work, can you tell?

[Johnjo]

Who said it was missed? Read what was said, there is not always time and money to fix everything, so minor issues go to the bottom of the pile, there is no way for us to know all of what they did fix before release day.

Mate whats with the one sentence posts criticizing anyone who has any issues with the game or makes a spelling mistake. If you think you are contributing to the forum then you need to have a long hard look at yourself. If your goal is to get your post count up, frustrate other users into saying somthing stupid and getting themselves banned or just general trolling then well played sir. I will leave it there.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

I think you are mixing things up here.. SI's customers are NOT entitled to require ANTHING from the next FM.. since they have NOTHING to do with the game until it is finished..

That depends on your definition of 'finished'. FM11? FM11.3?

[milnerpoint]

There are actually two sentences in that post you quoted, but fair play none the less

[MrPompey]

Do you know something about the financials of SI to justify such a statement?

Either way, saying that "software always has bugs" is defending the presence of bugs. "Software always has bugs" is an excuse for bugs existing - and it's a shoddy one.

Yes, bugs will always exist in software. It doesn't mean, however, that we can't demand for bug-free software, because bug-free software should be one of the ultimate aims of the game.

It's like many nasty things in life... Idiots cutting between lanes when driving, murder and so on - these will realistically never be eradicated, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for a society where people don't drive like idiots or kill each other.

The fact is that some people are unhappy at what they perceive as "obvious" and/or "glaring" bugs. They don't really care about software design or "that's how it is" - they care about "that's how it should be" - and as customers, they are right. Always.

Hi - I'm a Senior Test Manager for a Global IT company. Yep bugs do exist in software - take a look at software produced by corporate giants like Microsoft.

Some facts of life - Testing is a very expensive activity and will generally be about 25-40% of development costs. All software companies will apply a risk based approach testing, safety critical systems aside. This because its simply too expensive to fix all bugs. Testing is based on risk and therefore fixing bugs is based on risk. Those of lower severity / priority will not get fixed often because its going to take too long, its too expensive or simply the cost benefit isn't viable. Who pays for this investment ultimately, why its the purchaser.

I think it naive to expect a software product not to have bugs. As we also know development costs will relate to the product costs. If you want more money invested in a product's quality then the product will cost more. This is not just the software industry but all industries such as manufacturing, motor, food, retail etc

In any team, software or otherwise, if someone isn't pulling their weight or deliberating not aligned with the aims of the employer / team then they will be found out by the team. Thats the reason why its called a team....working together to the same aim

Its healthy to have debate like this but I think some awareness is also required.

Compared to most I think you'll find SI are equal to or likely much better compared to competitors and fellow software producing companies. These forums and employees responses do indicate this. The game isn't perfect and I'm sure SI will welcome us to tell them where its not

My personal view of life is that if there is something you don't like happening then its best to try and do something to change it. Sitting down doing nothing and moaning wont solve anything. In addition if you want change then a constructive approach will most likely have the best chance of success. How you respond is up to you and if you carry on as current thats fine also

However if I may be bold I'd recommend that perhaps you list your 5 worst bugs and give a summary of what they are what you think should happen and what actually happens, perhaps even evidence of it. This will give you the best chance of getting it resolved. If you really wanted to get involved and help test the product to ensure a better quality for you personally and other FM's (remember teams dont have to sit or work together to have the same aim) then perhaps consider asking SI if you could join a future beta test team

Ultimately if you aren't happy with something and don't feel you can change it through a constructive approach its your money and how you spend it in the future is up to you. Sales is all about supply and demand so vote with your feet if you so wish

This isn't a personal e-mail but I hope some of my explanations help you understand how the software industry works. If you dont understand this then perhaps I've failed

Cheers,

Mr Pompey

[MrPompey]

I can live with the occasional bug in FM. What really bugs me (pun intended) are the annoying bugs that exist for many many versions.

Surely given so many years, these bugs should have been fixed?

List these bugs and perhaps they can be identified and resolved

[wally13]

Hi - I'm a Senior Test Manager for a Global IT company. Yep bugs do exist in software - take a look at software produced by corporate giants like Microsoft.

Some facts of life - Testing is a very expensive activity and will generally be about 25-40% of development costs. All software companies will apply a risk based approach testing, safety critical systems aside. This because its simply too expensive to fix all bugs. Testing is based on risk and therefore fixing bugs is based on risk. Those of lower severity / priority will not get fixed often because its going to take too long, its too expensive or simply the cost benefit isn't viable. Who pays for this investment ultimately, why its the purchaser.

I think it naive to expect a software product not to have bugs. As we also know development costs will relate to the product costs. If you want more money invested in a product's quality then the product will cost more. This is not just the software industry but all industries such as manufacturing, motor, food, retail etc

In any team, software or otherwise, if someone isn't pulling their weight or deliberating not aligned with the aims of the employer / team then they will be found out by the team. Thats the reason why its called a team....working together to the same aim

Its healthy to have debate like this but I think some awareness is also required.

Compared to most I think you'll find SI are equal to or likely much better compared to competitors and fellow software producing companies. These forums and employees responses do indicate this. The game isn't perfect and I'm sure SI will welcome us to tell them where its not

My personal view of life is that if there is something you don't like happening then its best to try and do something to change it. Sitting down doing nothing and moaning wont solve anything. In addition if you want change then a constructive approach will most likely have the best chance of success. How you respond is up to you and if you carry on as current thats fine also

However if I may be bold I'd recommend that perhaps you list your 5 worst bugs and give a summary of what they are what you think should happen and what actually happens, perhaps even evidence of it. This will give you the best chance of getting it resolved. If you really wanted to get involved and help test the product to ensure a better quality for you personally and other FM's (remember teams dont have to sit or work together to have the same aim) then perhaps consider asking SI if you could join a future beta test team

Ultimately if you aren't happy with something and don't feel you can change it through a constructive approach its your money and how you spend it in the future is up to you. Sales is all about supply and demand so vote with your feet if you so wish

This isn't a personal e-mail but I hope some of my explanations help you understand how the software industry works. If you dont understand this then perhaps I've failed

Cheers,

Mr Pompey

Bravo pomps Bravo

[x42bn6]

I guarantee x42bn6 will reply with a big fancy post with big words to prove you wrong or disagree with you on this

Why assume I disagree with what he says? I agree with him... In fact, he sort of hits the nail on the head a little better than I did: "However as with all stats it's highly subjective because what really counts to the user is the impact of any particular bug on their game."

This isn't a personal e-mail but I hope some of my explanations help you understand how the software industry works. If you dont understand this then perhaps I've failed

Cheers,

Mr Pompey

Hi Mr. Pompey, I do work in the software industry (sort of), and I'm a software developer.

I just feel that a lot of people are using "software always has bugs" as an excuse to justify bugs in the software - as if bugs are not a bad thing. In some ways, yes, SI are better at interacting with their customers but then again, it's not that hard to be better than stone-walled like EA.

If a customer sees a flaw in a product, they don't really care how it's been designed or made (i.e. "this is how the software industry works") - they just care about the flaw. The flaw cannot be defended. I'm sure all of us have had terrible customer service before, where the customer service doesn't meet your expectations - having a flaw defended is exactly that - frustrating.

Look at things from a customer's point of view - not a software industry's. All developers are guilty of falling into that trap too easily, myself included. As Kriss says, it's the bugs that are seen by the customer that matter.

What several people in this thread are asking is not: "Why is this obvious bug in the game?" - they are asking: "What is SI going to do about this obvious bug?" The first is possibly interesting for consumers, but the latter is what they really care about - is this bug going to exist in the next version? How are SI going to ensure that similar bugs will never occur in the future?

My view is that the software QA barrier has gone down over time. 7.0.2 had no glaring bugs, whilst 11.3 appears to have disappearing statistics, odd transfers and an international withdrawals bug - all fairly glaring. And 11.3 isn't going to get patched again. None of this really sits well with me - the attitude towards bugs seems somewhat increasingly disdainful. I'm sure this really isn't the case behind the scenes, but extending what Kriss says, it really doesn't matter what happens behind the scenes - what really matters is what the customer sees.

So when bugs are brought up, my hope is that people don't defend it with what happens "behind the scenes" - nobody really cares. What they really want is an assurance that something is being done about these bugs.

[MrPompey]

Thanks for your reply.

I agree that we shouldn't be happy with bugs in the game. I think best way to get these resolved is to definately to bring them to SI's attention

Being a Test Manager I know the best chance of getting these fixed to define the issue, define the recreate steps, define expected and actual result in the bug details. Of course saved games prior to the event always assist recreating the bug and testing the fix. Also explaining how this issue impacts the game, your game playing experience and your opinion its severity to playing the game will help also. Views of impact to playability may vary but of its listed in the bugs forum, you explain the details well then its surprising how many people will add to your post if it impacts them. In some cases many people are ignorant to a specific bug or game exploit. The corner bug is a great one with many people not knowing until someone explained it in detail and of course people then used it

Personally I do think SI care about the quality of the product, it shows by their activity here and I'm sure its not just from a commercial perspective

I agree 100% on the assurance element and perhaps a learning element for SI is to confirm the likelyhood of fix to an issue would help us the FM'rs- expectation means a lot and can avoid disappointment

[Herter]

I'm not sure this is the case since 11.3 has more glaring bugs than 10.3, which had more than 7.0.2 - I think testing coverage is getting worse.

Besides, we shouldn't need to worry about how much something costs on SI's side. We don't control their budget. We are under no obligation to give them money.

Exactly.. and therefore they are under no obligation to listen to you. You buy the product they produce.. you dont buy the right to demand X and demand Y feature.. You may request they though and they might listen or they might choose not to. Thats what I meant about SI not being "entitled" to listen to their customers.

This doesn't mean that the customer is wrong. It means the customer was right. It also means the customer is frustrating.

I didnt say the customers IS wrong.. I said he CAN be wrong.. Of course, if SI want to stay in the business they have to listen to the customers, but that doesnt mean that the "customer is always right".. it means that they listen to customers and sort the, excuse the wording, crap from the goodies and take it from there. If the customer ALWAYS is right, I'm guessing you see it as a bug that, f.ex. difficulty levels arent in the game? - they've been requested from MANY customers over time.. and when they're always right, SI must implement it I guess? - hell no..

Your job is to turn specifications (not requirements) into software. Your job is to serve them - full-stop. If something goes wrong down the line, such as a bug or unfinished feature, it is your problem - not the customer's. The customers are right - your team did something wrong, for whatever reason.

I dont know where you work in the software world, but where I come from its normally called requirments specification, shortened requirements - so I'm guessing we're talking about the same stuff here. And NO my job is NOT to serve any customer.. My job is to serve my boss and my company. The customers has NO say in ANY element regarding my job. The only thing the customer has ANY say in is the feedback he can give to the product he has bought. Do customers affect your employment in any direct way where you work? - will you get fired if you dont meet the demand from the customers? - of course not.. Its not like we, the customers, have ANY affect on how SI runs their business and how the develop the game.. all we can do it support them with feedback and suggestions

Certainly, if there are budget constraints (i.e. the customer is obligated to pay), then there will be some form of negotiation on what is feasible. However, the customer is right. Always.

I'm not sure what "they have nothing to do with the game until it is finished" means, since customer feedback and questioning is always going to be important through out the process. This is why SI put demos out, after all.

What I meant was that no customers have anything to do with the game until they can play it.. all they can do is suggest features and discuss subjects on forums, as we do here. They cannot affect the development in any way and cannot give feedback until they try the game, well because what can they do until they try the game? Lets take FM12 as an example.. other than listen to the podcast how can we in any way directly affect the development of FM2012? - we can discuss things on the forums and suggest features.. thats it.. and we wont even know if SI will implement the feature or not until the game is out or the feature is announced.. So my point is stil valid, wether you understand it or not.. "customer have nothing to do with the game (directly) until it is finished".. by finished I meant, trying the game, which includes beta-testing.. should have mentioned that of course

Either way, it's semantics, really. Some customers may deem certain things to be requirements, otherwise they won't buy the software - they are entitled to require things - they are potential customers who won't buy the software if it doesn't meet their requirements. Some may request features but will buy it anyway; some will request things but won't buy it for whatever reason. A requirement is merely a stronger version of a request - and we are entitled to strong requests. Look at DLR.

For once I actually agree with you.. customers ARE entitled to request/require/demand whatever they like.. but they have NO POWER over whether what they requested is actually added to the game. It is 100% up to SI and therefore SI (and other software developers) do NOT "serve" customers.. they produce a product and make it available to us.. we are not their employers.. we are their customers.. there is a huge difference.

Developers code to specifications, not requirements; for that reason, we can put pretty much any requirement (or request) forward, as we are entitled to do so.

Specifications/requirements/requirements specifications.. call it what you want.. and the customers do NOT make these specifications.. dont you get that? SI makes them.. they MIGHT use some suggestions from the forum and add it to the specifications, but the customers do NOT do this themselves.

Why do these customers have no say in the requirements? Their requirements are that the game employs a manager RPG. Whether the requirement is nonsense or not is immaterial - it is a requirement from a certain set of customers.

Because they dont work for SI. Simple as that. Lets say you request the best feature ever thought of in the world.. What power do you have in any way to make sure that feature makes it to the specifications? - None.. you can suggest it on the forum and talk passionately about it.. but if SI dont feel it would be right for the game or that maybe it would cost too much to implement then the feature is out.. What then? how would that fit with your "the customer is always right?"

The customer is still right. SI's game does not cover a broad enough set of features to satisfy these customers - SI are wrong.

... lol @ this one... no need to comment I think

However, of course, there are other things that are important besides satisfying 100% of customers, such as overall game direction. But the customer... Is always right.

sigh...

You're confusing entitlement with correctness - the customer is always right, but SI are entitled to say no. Both are mutually exclusive. I'm right to demand a crime-free United Kingdom - the government is entitled to say that's almost impossible to guarantee.

What is there to demand if you have no say in it at all? - To demand a crime-free UK is fine.. and you may run for office in order to achieve it.. good luck with trying that with SI.. as I said.. there is NOTHING you can to directly affect SI's decision on what goes into the game.. and thats the main point here I think. Keep saying "customer is always right" is so naive and reminds me of my old business school teacher when we had our first "business"-lecture - dont know what its called in english.. I'm not a native english-speaker - "Customer is always right" is ONLY true if you are a telemarketing salesman or any other "sell as much as you can, no matter what"-type of producer.

1010101010101010

[Brian Shanahan]

Excuse me for hoping that SI hold themselves to a higher standard. Squad AI issues, International fixture clashes, corner bugs... these bugs have been there for years.

Excuse me for pointing out that this post is full of bull, and completely misses the point altogether.

The point was a) that your original post was wrong in it assertion, and b) that even with the best will in the world codes as complicated and complex as they are today are impossible to make without at least some errors.

[BossAsianMafia]

Excuse me for pointing out that this post is full of bull, and completely misses the point altogether.

The point was a) that your original post was wrong in it assertion, and b) that even with the best will in the world codes as complicated and complex as they are today are impossible to make without at least some errors.

How is my original assertion that bugs existing over several years = SI having a terrible record of bug-fixing wrong?

Care to prove that the examples listed haven't existed over the past few versions?

If the best will in the world can't resolve these long-standing bugs (or even try to mitigate it),

then you'll have to excuse me if I don't buy another version until it IS resolved.

[Nik_Dut]

The players' behavior is like girls in porn.

They changed from yes to no and back to yes instantly...

[MrPompey]

How is my original assertion that bugs existing over several years = SI having a terrible record of bug-fixing wrong?

Care to prove that the examples listed haven't existed over the past few versions?

If the best will in the world can't resolve these long-standing bugs (or even try to mitigate it),

then you'll have to excuse me if I don't buy another version until it IS resolved.

Then we come back to supply and demand. If your view was the very vast majority then people wouldn't buy the game. I think what makes SI different is that they do listen to the minority and the individual in addition to the majority

Presentation of your issue can make a big difference to how people respond to it - thats a feature of life in general

In the case of DKING above I'm not still entirely clear what the issue is and perhaps we should get the post back on track. Besides its Friday

[pigfacemonkeyman]

Then we come back to supply and demand. If your view was the very vast majority then people wouldn't buy the game. I think what makes SI different is that they do listen to the minority and the individual in addition to the majority

Presentation of your issue can make a big difference to how people respond to it - thats a feature of life in general

In the case of DKING above I'm not still entirely clear what the issue is and perhaps we should get the post back on track. Besides its Friday

I think this is quite clear from the OP.

[Neil Brock]

In the 7.0.2 has less bugs than 11.3 argument for a start you have to take into account FM11 is a far bigger game than FM07 was - if anything the testing element of FM has vastly improved in the years I've been here. Be it internally, via the beta or even with the rounding up of issues from the forums. I'm not trying to make excuses, but I can assure you the organisation of testing is much better than it's ever been at any point in the past.

[StevoRobbo]

Ok FM11 might have had less bugs on paper, but how many of those bugs have been around for 2 or more versions of the game because they are deemed 'not a high enough priority to fix'? They might only be small niggly bugs, and yes there will be much worse bugs especially with the new features, but IMO, any bug that has been around for 2 versions of the game should be a very high priority. Bugs should not be around for a third time, especially little niggly ones that would 'appear' easy to fix to customers.

[MrPompey]

I think this is quite clear from the OP.

on the basis no-ones answered it directly you may be the only who understood it:D

[asdpoo]

on the basis no-ones answered it directly you may be the only who understood it:D

The issue is that

1. Player wants out

2. You agree and he is happy. Then you try to sell him

3. You get a news item, that he is reluctant to leave, because he just came in.

4. Player hands in a transfer request, because you didn't make good on your promise. You accept the request and offer the player to clubs.

5. Nobody wants to bid, because the player is reluctant to leave, due to his recent arrival.

How do you answer that?