Each week....

[Philbill1]

I have been coming to this forum and reading the AAR's (which are fantastic). I visit at least 3 times a day. The problem is for the last 6 weeks i have been thinking it will be released this week for each of these weeks. Now its getting to the end of April. I am going to ask the question that evryone wants to know.
Surely its this week?
Its already looking tight to release by the end of April and I like many others cannot stand the suspense anymore. The AAR's just make want the game even more!
Im off to lie down
Phil

[1089]

When Joel complained about getting burned too often by trying to say when it would go gold, I assumed that meant that they had uncovered a few more problems. I figured May at that time, since there were only two weeks in April left, and it takes at least a week after going gold to be prepared to ship, more likely two. So I check each day for the announcement that it has gone gold, but I am not holding my breath anymore. Better it's right than early. Besides each Mogami post adds another week till they can go gold...

kp

[Sonny]

You would think as many of these games as these guys have put together they could be a lot better at estimating when it is gonna be done.

I understand not wanting to get burned by setting a release date sooner than they can make, but come on....

Even though I seem impatient (and surely I am) all the frustration will pass once the game is out.

[Toro]

One thing I've learned in working with software development is that the best laid plan is never the one that gets implemented. (I think Eisenhower said something about war regarding this same concept, too.) There are always unanticipated bugs, minor software interactions that are spotted during testing. And, some of these can be a puzzle in themselves to track down and fix. Considering the multitude of lines of code involved, things are just gonna happen.

1089 is right: best to get it right (hopefully in about the timeframe promised) than to do the standard software ploy these days: distribute then fix. Ergh. That kind of business model really pisses me off.

[1089]

I have also noticed many problems with schedules in software development. The trouble is that design and coding takes up 90% of the scheduled time, and then debug and patching takes up the other 90%.

kp

[Supervisor]

Software development rests on the triad of code development/QA/marketing-sales.

There are pressures from each area that have to be balanced out. Without the code development there is no product. Without QA there is poor quality. Without the marketing/sales there is no money to do code development. Each leg is needed. Without (good) coding nothing will be available for release (that works, anyway). Without QA the product is often so flawed that it never recovers from the initial nightmare of release. Without good marketing, you don't make money and don't survive to put out another product. All three are needed, but there must be a proper balance between them.

In far too many cases, the marketing leg has a much greater say and ends up overriding the others (or like in the case of Hasbro, et. al., the marketing team doesn't even really understand what the product is and how it is made »»» if you're good at selling toys, that doesn't automatically mean that you are therefore good at selling software or, for that manner, that you eveb understand the differences in the process of making toys vs. software). This, plus the fact that too many companies stint themselves in the QA area, leads to the mass of faulty software that is being released followed by (in some cases almost concurrently) multiple patches. This (in itself) shows what a couple of weeks can do in the fianl polishing up and error checking process which occurs at the end of the release cycle. Correcting one minor problem can often break something else and/or unmask an already existing problem that was hidden by the first bug. The second problem can be quite a bit worse than the first was, so a "minor" bug fix can turn into a "major" bug fix.

Many companies are following the (I call it :rolleyes: ) Microsoft model of the "paying beta testers" (otherwise known as customers ) to help them with fine tuning and correcting their products. They release the product, hear back from customers (complaints/bug reports), correct the bug and then they release patch (after patch after patch [I'm sorry, "service packs"] ). Patches are inevitable given the complexity of programs anymore (you will always miss something).

It's nice to see a company which is willing to put out the best quality product that they can in a realistic time frame. The product will never be perfect, but the standards for initial quality should be higher than what the industry norm is (at this time). Matrix Games looks to be in the upper tier of companies in this respect. I can afford to wait several weeks (or even a couple of months) for a better quality product.

You would think as many of these games as these guys have put together they could be a lot better at estimating when it is gonna be done.

As for being able to "give an [tight] estimate of product release", this is what gets far too many products out the door too early ("It was promised by [date x], and it will be released then! No matter what!"). It's better not to raise hopes any higher than they already are (can they get higher? ). As for a looser estimate, we are currently in the "window of opportunity" and it could arrive at any time. But, let us allow it to arrive in it's own time.

Overall, I would say that things are going well (from where I sit). I commend Matrix and their staff for their commitment, and I say "Thanks!". Nice to see a company with a commitment to quality (and the willingness to listen to users) like this.

[tohoku]

Originally posted by Rowlf
Without good marketing, you don't make money and don't survive to put out another product. All three are needed, but there must be a proper balance between them.

Counter-exhibit A, M'Lord: *nix.

Marketting is self-perpetuating fluff, IMHO.



tohoku
YMMV