You're viewing a single thread.
this just in: actually spending money on QA allows you to put out a higher quality product
It's truly amazing what can happen when they don't cut quite so many corners and release the minimal viable product.
I'm not sure that using the entire QA staff of the world's largest agglomeration of Dev studios on a single game only qualifies as "not cutting corners". That's surely going above and beyond.
If that's what it takes to ship a game that doesn't have multitudes of game breaking bugs like they're known for, perhaps the company has bigger problems. Like still using an engine that is this bad.
This engine is a house of cards that is decades past collapsing.
It really depends on if that dev studio conglomerate collectively cut costs on QA and by how much
If Agile consultant could read they'd be very upset
I really don’t like the word agile since everyone I ever met who had this in their job title was blowing up steam someones butt. Is that the job description or what is it with these agile types?
Agile used to refer to a very specific way of developing software, but then it got coopted by the mainstream where companies kept doing shit the same way they always had but calling it "agile". It's basically like when early Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.
That’s a pretty cool comparison. Can you elaborate on that a bit? I have no idea what actually happened with christianity in ancient rome.
Yeah, every single workplace I've worked at aside from one has been "iterative waterfall" - AKA waterfall with sprints.
Companies shouldn't be allowed to say they're "agile"....
Also helps to come out with a game so popular you can bank on it for the next decade