Publisher issuing take-down notices. http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2014/11/24/call-of-duty-glitch-videos-in-activisions-s/1
If you haven't realized it yet, Activision has shown they prefer to release broken games and never patch them. They could just patch the glitches, but then the dev team would have to delay work on the next COD their studio will be spitting out in 3 years.
3 Years, are you being generous ? I thought the norm was to slap together some kind of rehashed of last years release every year.
corky42 - I think they have 3 separate studios now and they take it in turn to release games each year, so the team (studio) that built this game will likely release their next instalment in 3 years time, the 3 studios (or devs) are: Infinity Ward (2003–) Treyarch (2005–) Sledgehammer Games (2011–)
3 years for each company to develop a game and they will still look like they were made 4 years earlier and still have issues that will not get resolved, they will also all be cheat infested on day one as has been every COD game for the last 5 years. Either way I am done with COD now.
Cheeky, lazy, arrogant developers. Get it fixed on day one you plebs, instead of bitching people who have bought it at 45.00 a time and then ran into the usual BS problems. Honestly jeez!
I'd really like to get the word out on this: It's not always the Dev's fault for leaving bugs or not fixing them. You also have Product Management and the overarching business men who own them. At this point we he no other information other than "There are bugs" and "The company is doing everything it can to squash the people outing the bugs." So all we can do is blame the whole stupid company.
Yep, blame the devs. It's always the developers fault. Never the publishers. Never the money men. Never the management. Never the project management team. Never the technical architect. Never the quality assurance team. Never a last minute graphics driver release. Never a software packing issue. Never a graphics engine issue. Everyone knows, it takes mere seconds to fix ANY bug of ANY size that been released for ANY reason. If a competent developer can't fix twenty-eight (at least) game breaking bugs a minute they're clearly:- Cheeky, lazy and arrogant.
Guinevere hit the nail on the head, the problem is the money men. The publishers often push the developers into rushing things because they want to see a return on their money, they care little about the developers reputation or anything else except seeing a return on their investment. Note: There probably are publishers that have concerns beyond money, but i can't think of many.
I encompass the "development team" as those involved with the process that gets this product to market from conception, construction, direction, innovation, evaluation and quality control. Your Hissy-fit is laughable though. Coffee?
So this is the "development team" that often has very little control of things like what conception gets the green light, how long they can spend on the construction, get pushed in different directions to appeal to a new demographic, have to show that innovations make financial sense, and only have limited time to spend on evaluation and quality control ? When someone else controls the purse strings you lose a great deal of control.
Your argument, as well as your, ahem, "defence" of it, is wholly fallacious. You didn't say "development team", you said "Cheeky, lazy, arrogant developers". Even if you had said "development team" you'd still be in the wrong, because "development team" doesn't mean "those responsible for bringing a product to market", it means "the team of people who wrote the code". Most developers pride themselves on their work; I do, and so does pretty much every other developer I know (which is quite a few, as I actually work in a development team.). Bugs, problems, defects, flaws, etc in our code are a failure in the tasks we've been set and a reflection on the work that we produce. No one likes doing shoddy work; bugs and defects are unavoidable, but if we know about them then we'll do everything we can to fix them. But we're not always in a position to be able to fix these problems because our efforts are directed elsewhere: projects are forced to go live when they're not ready, inadequate time is given to testing, inadequate time is given to support, projects are closed down when there are still problems because we're told we need to move on to The Next Big Thing. We often don't have a choice in the matter and standing firm behind your principles against the wishes of your paymasters is a quick way to earn yourself a swift boot out the door. It's probably no different in "triple A" game development: publishers and investors want the Product out there so they can start earning money on it. There is a hell of a lot of money in games these days. When it comes to the big companies like Activision, EA, Ubisoft, etc, money rules the roost, and with $10bn in sales Call of Duty is one of the biggest money makers in gaming. The developers will want to put out the best possible code they can because they're developers (we have odd tendencies like that, you see). But ultimately the people in control at massive publishing behemoths like Ubi, EA, Activision, etc, don't give one snivelling s**t about you, your gaming experience or the quality of their products. All they're interested in is bringing in the money and making sure it keeps coming in.
