Ok... I understand all those that say there is a lot that goes into creating EQ and all other games. I'm a programmer myself and do understand and realize this is a huge undertaking. However, as a programmer I would never let things go into production in the state EQ does. You can't say 'sorry Mr. Pres, we just couldn't test it until we tried it out live'. Yes there may always be some small bugs - BUT THEY ARE ALWAYS SMALL ENOUGH TO FIX ASAP OR AT LEAST WITHDRAW THE PRODUCT. And you always, ALWAYS, let those 'users' (whoever they may be) know what is going on. There are many things out in the world much more complicated than EQ and the work. They get changed and upgraded all the time a also. Don't think EQ is the most complicated thing in the world. Sit back and think of all the things that use computers. From cars to nukes. You can't say 'opps, sorry about the break system, well be looking into it.... just keep it up but at the time we can't replace anything for you'.... or 'sorry Mr. Pres, no idea ATM why the defence system not working.... we might have it fixed on next Wed patch'. PATCH!!!! that is a word I would never use to a user as much as EQ uses with us. Don't get me wrong - I don't blame the GM's. They pretty much screwed with their position within EQ. But to put out product like they do is bad. One last thing... who will look into EQ2 asap or wait to see if it even works?

Cause we all know the first nuclear tests werent live.
/sarcasm off

The programmers and designers at SoE do not work for minimum wage 80 hours a week.

Cause we all know the first nuclear tests werent live.
/sarcasm off

The programmers and designers at SoE do not work for minimum wage 80 hours a week.

If they run their house like another major distributor I worked for, the testers aren't taken seriously and they ARE paid minimum wage.

Testing and QA were treated as, if not seen as, an impediment to releasing a new title. Upon several occasions a product would have its bugs pointed out and they would be written off. They even have a category for it. "Known Shippable". So, if the bean counters say sell it by X day and you have bugs you check them off as "Known Shippable" and sell it anyway.

It was a cause for great exasperation as the testers, who worked ungodly hours for little pay, watched a "known shippable" go out the door then see people blame them for the bugs.

Its amazing more of them didn't go more insane than they already were.

If they run their house like another major distributor I worked for, the testers aren't taken seriously and they ARE paid minimum wage.
Yep. I do software packaging and our QA team makes about 1/3 what I do.

If you think developers and software testers decide when software is ready to ship, then you work at a very different software company.

The programmers and designers at SoE do not work for minimum wage 80 hours a week

Then why does the effort they put forth seem like they DO get paid minimum wage~

didnt they outsource to India?? :assimilat

didnt they outsource to India?? :assimilatYes, but I think it's only for positions that have interaction with customers.

When I said "programmers and designers at SoE" I meant "programmers and designers at SoE", not testers. Thanks for reading that clearly.

Then why does the effort they put forth seem like they DO get paid minimum wage~
You just failed the build in IQ test of my reply. I'll put it this way: Absor would be more than happy to accept your big fat cheque to help with testing. They have been doing well lately, but I'm still geting a kick out of this thread.

I think I'll go take a Vioxx now, cause the "prez" said they're safe. :flipbg:

They have been doing well lately, but I'm still geting a kick out of this thread.


Riiiiiight, most of the epic quests prove otherwise.

Don't you think comparing testing of a computer game to critical stuff like a defense system, or car breaks is a bit over the top? Does someone die when there's a bug in EQ?

Don't you think comparing testing of a computer game to critical stuff like a defense system, or car breaks is a bit over the top? Does someone die when there's a bug in EQ?So you're saying that doing a half-a**ed job is OK because no lives are lost if there are bugs? For myself, I'm embarassed for anyone who doesn't take pride in the work that they do. Just "getting by to get by" doesn't cut it regardless of whether it's a game or a strategic military weapon.

So you're saying that doing a half-a**ed job is OK because no lives are lost if there are bugs? For myself, I'm embarassed for anyone who doesn't take pride in the work that they do. Just "getting by to get by" doesn't cut it regardless of whether it's a game or a strategic military weapon.

While ethically it's not ok it does make a world of difference in the attitude of people whether you like it or not. Do you know SAP or Oracle? They are the two largest companies in the world making the ERP software suites. This is the stuff that runs the day-to-day operations of the largest companies in the world from billing to manufacturing. I'll give you two guesses whether both of these software suites have bugs. So, yeah, it sucks, but reality often sucks.

You guys are only focusing on the bad. Number of bugs x the severity vs the amount of content is the equasion. And epics aren't beta tested because then we'd know what the epic is, so I don't think that's quite fair to include.

Personally, I am tired of these arguments. People who want to complain about the quality of SOE's software are always going to find fault, no matter how well arguments are made against their opinion. Fine. Bitch about it then if you want.

I, however, am going to enjoy the game. Toodles! =)

I used to think EQ was just a difficult product and bugs were part of the price to pay for an affordable game. Having seen CoH, which is almost bug free and has good customer service, I've changed my mind. I'm not going to buy another Sony game until they prove they can make a stable, reliable game with good customer service.

Ok... I understand all those that say there is a lot that goes into creating EQ and all other games. I'm a programmer myself and do understand and realize this is a huge undertaking. However, as a programmer I would never let things go into production in the state EQ does. You can't say 'sorry Mr. Pres, we just couldn't test it until we tried it out live'. Yes there may always be some small bugs - BUT THEY ARE ALWAYS SMALL ENOUGH TO FIX ASAP OR AT LEAST WITHDRAW THE PRODUCT. And you always, ALWAYS, let those 'users' (whoever they may be) know what is going on. There are many things out in the world much more complicated than EQ and the work. They get changed and upgraded all the time a also. Don't think EQ is the most complicated thing in the world. Sit back and think of all the things that use computers. From cars to nukes. You can't say 'opps, sorry about the break system, well be looking into it.... just keep it up but at the time we can't replace anything for you'.... or 'sorry Mr. Pres, no idea ATM why the defence system not working.... we might have it fixed on next Wed patch'. PATCH!!!! that is a word I would never use to a user as much as EQ uses with us. Don't get me wrong - I don't blame the GM's. They pretty much screwed with their position within EQ. But to put out product like they do is bad. One last thing... who will look into EQ2 asap or wait to see if it even works?

White space is your friend.

Don't you think comparing testing of a computer game to critical stuff like a defense system, or car breaks is a bit over the top? Does someone die when there's a bug in EQ?

Every time EQ bugs, an angel looses its wings.

used to think EQ was just a difficult product and bugs were part of the price to pay for an affordable game. Having seen CoH, which is almost bug free and has good customer service, I've changed my mind.

CoH is NOT bug free and their customer service, while better than EQ, is not excellent.

I have had petitions in queue for mobs stuck in walls in a mission for over a week. I petition when I log on, I play for about 5 hours, I log off and go to bed. I wake up to an email that basically says "you weren't in game so we closed your petition."

Never actually managed to get a GM to help. I finally found someone with teleport foe who could target it and port it out. I could then finish my story arc.

CoH is BETTER than EQ bugwise but its also has much fewer features overall.

Every time EQ bugs, an angel looses its wings.

Show me an angel :)

CoH is BETTER than EQ bugwise but its also has much fewer features overall.

CoH is incomparably better than EQ for bugs. On initial launch it was putting far more content live than you'd find in an EQ release and even then it was remarkably high quality. I think I've come across less bugs in all my time plaing CoH than I've found in one day of EQ.

I think I've come across less bugs in all my time plaing CoH than I've found in one day of EQ. Wow! Where in EQ are you playing to run across all those bugs? I play EQ almost daily and rarely (e.g. maybe once a month or two) do I run across a bug. Considering 5 years of content, programming over older programming, etc, I think EQ is remarkably bug free.

Those who look for perfection will never be satisfied.

I think in one day I've seen horses standing about without an owner, had the exodus bug, had my spell gems go wrong, had mobs warp about and path wrongly, fallen under the earth, been in a zone that's crashed, seen players or corpses get stuck in walls, been unable to log in a character for fifteen minutes, and/or had my trader dumped out of the bazaar. That's plenty and sounds about right for a bad EQ day. That's more than I've seen altogether in CoH.

Show me an angel :)

They are easy to spot.. Since EQ is so buggy they are all walking to FanFair to complain.

On initial launch it was putting far more content live than you'd find in an EQ release and even then it was remarkably high quality. I think I've come across less bugs in all my time plaing CoH than I've found in one day of EQ.

So you are trying to compare the launch of a new game with an expansion pack?

Comparing Issue #2 with OoW would be a closer comparison.

OoW offered several new zones(not sure how many but more than CoH's 2), level increase, more AA's, voiceovers, Epic 1.5 and 2.0, increased buff/spell slots, the task system, and probably more that I am missing.

Issue 2 offered some new instanced maps, capes, effects, 2 new mob types, 2 zones, and badges anything else I missed was even more minor.
Of course issue 2 had less bugs. While prettier than EQ, CoH doesn't have the complexity EQ does.

However you compare CoH to EQ, CoH knocks the socks off EQ in terms of reliability. I'm extremely surprised anyone is disputing it or trying to examine the context. If you're saying CoH is simpler and less buggy then great. Simplicity of design is a bonus.

Just consider EQ boats and just how many problems those loathesome boats have given to players, often leading to players losing an hour of online time. You used to lose a half hour on them even if they worked right! The last boat bug I remember was in Natimbi running along a river to Qinimi and having a boat sweep me up and capture me and drag me stuck inside to Abysmal Sea. They're a nice idea badly implemented and if they can't do them right they should have just left them like the boat from Stonebrunt to Gunthak. Simplicity was better.

Just consider EQ boats and just how many problems those loathesome boats have given to players, often leading to players losing an hour of online time. You used to lose a half hour on them even if they worked right!
*shrug* depends on what you consider "lost."

I used to enjoy the boat rides back around the time Velious launched. The music kicked ass and I got to know many people I otherwise would never have met.

However you compare CoH to EQ, CoH knocks the socks off EQ in terms of reliability
I disagree with you and so would many over at the CoH boards who are complaing about constant crashes.

I never had any real problems with crashes in either game. I think I ended up under the world twice in 3 years playing and submitted a grand total of 4 petitions.

CoH has it's share of problems. The difference is that the new hasn't worn off of CoH yet like it has on EQ.

So you are trying to compare the launch of a new game with an expansion pack?

Comparing Issue #2 with OoW would be a closer comparison.

OoW offered several new zones(not sure how many but more than CoH's 2), level increase, more AA's, voiceovers, Epic 1.5 and 2.0, increased buff/spell slots, the task system, and probably more that I am missing.

Issue 2 offered some new instanced maps, capes, effects, 2 new mob types, 2 zones, and badges anything else I missed was even more minor.
Of course issue 2 had less bugs. While prettier than EQ, CoH doesn't have the complexity EQ does.

Let me add to your comparison:

Issue #2: Free or in essence paid for with your monthly subscription. It added content and solved problems created by missing features.

OoW: You had to pay extra ($40?) on top of you monthly subscription. It added content and solved problems created in the last expansion. It also created problems that you will have to buy, the next expansion to solve. It's a vicious circle and your the cash cow.

Show me an angel :)You won't find many in EQ. It's against the naming rules. :p

Issue #2: Free or in essence paid for with your monthly subscription. It added content and solved problems created by missing features.
1) It was $29.99 and will probably be $10-15 dollars in a couple of months.

2) You are not figuring in the extra $2.00 a month that CoH charges ($14.95 vs 12.95)

EQ has what, 15ish different classes to balance and try to keep happy? CoH has 4.
Like I said, CoH is a great game, I play it myself but saying they are equally easy to debug is crazy.

How can you compare a game that was released 5 years ago, when the concept MMORPG was relatively new and unexplored, to a game that was released a few months ago when the MMORPG genre is around it's peak.

Let's not forget Everquest was built with a few bugs here and there, and it's base engine is difficult to modify with all of today's mutations to it. And before you say: "well, why didn't they fix it at the time?", you should all remind yourselves that the original team (Verant) was unexperienced with the genre like i said above. Not only that but I'm sure they had not anticipated how wildly popular the game would be, how many "fix this, fix that" requests there would be, and concequently the more people you have playing, the faster bugs are identified. That's a lot of work for an unexperienced company.

Now you have a game like CoH that was practically built considerating previous MMORPG's flaws as well as their positive points. You can't really compare the two. Even if a company like NCSoft doesn't have previous experiences in the genre, I'm sure they could actually read feedback on previous MMORPGs and analyze them. There is no way in hell to compare the two.

Easy to say a game like CoH is nearly bug free, when the company behind it has basically piggybacked on other companies attempts, failures and successes.

That's all interesting, but really it's not relevant. The bottom line is, one pays 12.95~14.95 a month for whatever MMOG you happen to play, and one should reasonably expect a similar level of customer service, bug free code, and game quality. All projects the size of an MMOG will have bugs, that's a given. What can be different is the speed at which known bugs are fixed, and the way that the CS team deals with the problems before that happens. Whether or not one game is older than the other is completely and utterly irrelevant to the person who picks up the retail box for any game, shells out $50 and a few months of a more-or-less the same fee. Does the new player consider the age of the game to be a valid excuse for bug riddled code and poor customer service? Should there be a label on the box that says, "Note: Game contains bugs that will never be fixed, but that's ok because we came out 5 years ago and deserve some slack."

To be fair, CoH's design allows for a BOATLOAD more tracking of information. I cant remember the number, but I remember Statesman saying it was on the order of a hundred gigs a day of raw data collected from the live servers. EQ has never had anything like that, which can make tracking down bugs more challenging. On the other hand, EQ has had ~7 years to implement something like that, and they've chosen not to, so that simply is not an excuse.

Law of free market and competition. We all know why EQ1 is hanging on. It's not a bad game, not by any fair judgement. Far from it, all things considered, EQ1 is an excellent MMOG and always has been. But it's old, full of issues, and things arent getting any better. When an animal gets sick and falls behind the herd, we know what happens. EQ1 has a ways to go yet, and many years of fun will be had by a lot of people. But you cant honestly argue that it should be excused its many flaws just because it's old.