Posted May 10, 2013
TheEnigmaticT
GOG Marketer Guy
TheEnigmaticT Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat GOG.com Team
Registered: Nov 2010
From Poland
TheEnigmaticT
GOG Marketer Guy
TheEnigmaticT Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat GOG.com Team
Registered: Nov 2010
From Poland
Posted May 13, 2013
It is not very common, as I understand it. Mainly, they look to see if it makes things worse than the previous version. This is obviously not very often the case.
TheEnigmaticT
GOG Marketer Guy
TheEnigmaticT Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat GOG.com Team
Registered: Nov 2010
From Poland
Posted May 13, 2013
reminder: Pro question: how extensively do you test the patches? Forgive me for being pessimistic, but I really doubt you do something more than
"virus scan passed - check"
"game can still run after patch - check"
"No obvious graphical/sound problems - check"
Please tell me I'm wrong an if so - just how much more do you do. Cause I'm not sure about testing the patches, but no one clearly tested the game when it was put up on gog. After my first hour of gameplay I had already made a buglist with 8 entries.
So please forgive me, but I really doubt you guys are more trustworthy than the devs. Not when it comes to this game for sure.
How extensively? That's more a question for the product team than for me. That said, I believe they check the version notes to see if it's addressed issues from there as well as generally checking stability. So more or less the checklist you have above, yeah. "virus scan passed - check"
"game can still run after patch - check"
"No obvious graphical/sound problems - check"
Please tell me I'm wrong an if so - just how much more do you do. Cause I'm not sure about testing the patches, but no one clearly tested the game when it was put up on gog. After my first hour of gameplay I had already made a buglist with 8 entries.
So please forgive me, but I really doubt you guys are more trustworthy than the devs. Not when it comes to this game for sure.
The issue that you may have with the Eador patches isn't what GOG.com can help with, though. We can't delay a game's release (well, that's not completely true. I can think of one example where test team feedback early in a game's beta did end up causing a bit of a delay on finishing the game, but we can't *force* the game to be delayed). When Eador launched, we could either 1) not give anyone access to the game they'd preordered or 2) release a game that needed a little more polish.
1) is really not a good option at all. You paid for the game. You want it when everyone else gets it. The same is true of patches, provided that they pass the checks that our development team has in place. So the testing that we do isn't there to regress bugs from the developer. That's not our job, and it's not what you'd want us to do anyway. Testing a game like Eador would probably take a week or so for bug regression on some of the issues they're fixing. :P.