Uh, they need to know whats wrong (ie people reporting bugs) to make a solution... They don't just have them, and no its not consoles faults.usucdik said:So they have solutions to problems but wait for reports of bugs to try them out. How does that make sense? I blame consoles in general.JourneyThroughHell said:So, yeah. Not really that much of a fail, is it?Olin's original post said:Phase 1: Gather feedback, reproduce reports and implement solutions.
I think it goes without saying that they work out the solutions in the process and don't have them already.usucdik said:So they have solutions to problems but wait for reports of bugs to try them out. How does that make sense? I blame consoles in general.JourneyThroughHell said:So, yeah. Not really that much of a fail, is it?Olin's original post said:Phase 1: Gather feedback, reproduce reports and implement solutions.
Actually it still is, Honestly when I made the post the thought crossed my mind "Is this Treyarch's FAIL or the Escapist's FAIL?" Now I know it's the Escapists FAIL.JourneyThroughHell said:danpascooch said:This is the biggest FAIL I have seen in a while.John Funk said:the process has four major phases: Gathering information/reproducing the bug, testing the patch internally, getting approval from platform manufacturers and, finally, releasing the patch.>
In a description of the steps needed to patch the game, they jump from "reproduce bug" to "test finished patch"
Gee, it seems like they're missing something there....like, I don't know MAKING THE PATCH!
Yeah, that's a pretty important part of the PATCHING process.So, yeah. Not really that much of a fail, is it?Olin's original post said:Phase 1: Gather feedback, reproduce reports and implement solutions.
OT: I also hope you guys fix the lobby system. Really, I can never get into an HQ match. That's not cool. Maybe that's my internet, but, really, doesn't look like it.
Other than that, at least it's nice to see Treyarch actually talk to their community.
It's funny that you're telling people to use logic, when you're the one to respond to my post and imply something that was never stated or hinted on.usucdik said:Then why the hell are you saying it? And why say it multiple times? And most important of all, why don't you see that it clearly says otherwise in the article?
Also, no, it doesn't. That reasoning only works one way. In the other direction, they could very well know that shoddy code exists but haven't done enough testing because of the horribly aggressive release date.
Yeah. That's about right. Clearly they already have all of the solutions but just don't implement them until the bugs get noticed... you know, because they're assholes like that.usucdik said:So they have solutions to problems but wait for reports of bugs to try them out. How does that make sense? I blame consoles in general.
Of course. You didn't imply anything that wasn't at all present in the original post.usucdik said:And what was that? I didn't have to imply anything. Your terrible reading comprehension has led you to believe this. The fact is that the subsequent understanding as I posted it would be logical, meaning it was systemic and that the original words that you bothered to quote contain the bad logic I followed.
I don't know, maybe it makes total sense to you to have a methodology of troubleshooting that only carries a single step. But then why would you call it a step?
So, eh, tell me then, where did you get that from?So they have solutions to problems but wait for reports of bugs to try them out. How does that make sense? I blame consoles in general.
Really? You don't understand?usucdik said:This just makes absolutely no sense. The Internet allows devs to get away with something? Maybe you misspoke, but based on your pattern it seems more likely that you're spewing out more fabricated bullshit. So with that, I'm still gonna blame consoles in general.JourneyThroughHell said:And, you blame consoles in general? Cool. Except they don't have anything to do with that. If you want to blame something, blame in the Internet - it's the only thing that allows developers to get away with poor play testing.
If you actually bothered to look at the link provided in the article (or even read the article for that matter) instead of sitting here and pulling stuff out of the air, you would probably see that their methodology of troubleshooting carries four steps.usucdik said:I don't know, maybe it makes total sense to you to have a methodology of troubleshooting that only carries a single step. But then why would you call it a step?
That's all I needed to know - a simple test determined that you are just trolling.usucdik said:Because.JourneyThroughHell said:Tell me, then, how are consoles to blame for all of this?