I mentioned "completely" because the fact is we're more susceptible to bugs and glitches as we can cover more areas than QA through our sheer numbers of players. While consoles are easier to debug with standardized hardware, there's still the complicated game design that requires so many different combinations of a similar scenario to test. My original comparison was VALVe's PC updates fixes some things, and breaks others, and VALVe was meant to be an example of devs that have similar issues to DICE. Though perhaps using VALVe and their broken PC updates is a bad way to reply to a comment regarding broken console patches. I will admit, the excuse of 300 vs. millions is incredibly flimsy and mostly shot down, given a console update wrecks the graphics and previously working features (second graphical obliteration if you include one of the broken PC updates). So how QA managed to miss the Pyrovision and basic features failing to work amongst a team of 300 does imply incompetence and laziness, yet the possibility of them missing it because the issue didnt happen for them still exists, which is why the excuse isn't completely shot down.


Arch Rivals for the NES freezes if you went into overtime, Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness for PS2 was broken enough to kill off Core Design, and Initial D: Special Stage for the PS2 doesn't work at all on many slim PS2s (game freezes completely at the intro cinematic; solution is to either use a different PS2 revision model, or stream from a hard drive through USB and a boot disc, but suffer slow cinematics due to USB 1.1). Online patching options aren't the reason for unplayable console games. I know I cherry-picked examples, but the same would've applied for current gen games that were good games, but too broken from being playable. The actual number of current-gen console games that are as broken as Battlefield 4 can be counted by hand. I do agree that publishers are showing an increased tendency to release games within profitable seasons/periods even if the game isn't ready, because they know they can patch it later to shut us up. The mentality of minimizing bugs before releasing at all has begun to shift towards prioritizing which bugs need to be fixed now, and which ones can be fixed post-release. I've read enough stories from "The Trenches" to have an idea of what Quality Assurance is about. Then there's the shareholders for public companies. Delay the game, watch the price go down. Or release the game now, please the shareholders, and fix the game later to please us. So yeah, I get that modern mentalities are beginning to shift for worse. I wouldn't really blame it on games being connected to the net though.

I already said you shot down that Devil's Advocate argument in my previous post. The only remaining excuse was the 300 vs. millions, where much of the credibility was questioned and struck down, but we still lack some information to completely nullify said excuse.


Ok, now on to CptainCrunch...

I don't think DICE wants to spoil the entire game for Alpha/Beta testing. I understand we're currently given such a broken game, that we might as well be paid a wage to play their game and submit feedback, but... If the Alpha/Beta were a really huge chunk of the game, what's the point of even selling the final retail version when you've already seen it? What I WOULD complain about, is the timeframe of their tests. It was obviously meant for last-minute server-side tweaks, given how soon the actual release was. If the Alpha was half a year away, and the Beta was 3 months away, then perhaps something could've been done before going gold. Or even affect its probability of going gold within that release window.

Perhaps there were even more obvious bugs that QA caught (maybe there were more gamebreaking problems than we realized). But there were too many major problems that they couldn't catch them all. And with our millions of "playtesters" it would make it seem like QA shouldn't have missed it, but given investors pressuring EA to release in time to compete against Call of Duty: Ghosts, it's still plausible that QA wasn't given enough time and manpower to catch every single gamebreaker if we had any information of how broken it was before its release. I mean there weren't THAT many gamebreakers shown on those Twitch pre-release marathon streams right? We still lack information to know how many QA caught and how many QA failed to notice on obvious issues. One hint we do know is executives doing a "pump and dump" which means QA may actually know how broken it is, but it's EA as a publisher who doesn't care. That's one argument that can really shake up and question the 300 vs. millions argument when QA actually knows how broken it is before we even saw it. But we still lack information to completely nullify it.

Tried to find it. Couldn't. I thought it was Angry Joe, but I didn't hear him say six months. Any idea which YouTube Partner the person was on? I hope it's not The Game Nation, because that is giving Total Gaming Network way too much misguided spam.


So from what I'm seeing, we're all in agreement that DICE is agonizingly incompetent for allowing game breaking issues to happen (the kind that's supposed to fail Microsoft certification, but we're talking about EA with their backstage passes through Microsoft), but I haven't seen any actual argument that this is confirmed to be Quality Assurance's fault, when their resources to catch the majority of issues before we do, are in fact, less than us (300 vs. millions). I know you're pointing at Pyrovision and basic features no longer working properly, but how many people are seeing this on consoles? Is every single console player running into this issue, since they're all on standardised hardware (ignoring revisions)? Is the console itself having issues? Did QA really miss it because they're "only 300 people?" I still feel like we lack information to properly nullify the 300 vs. millions excuse.


For my overall conclusion though, I'd say the Devil's Advocate test shows our frustration and anger against DICE is well-warranted and not out of a peer-pressure induced bandwagon, thanks to Zips' and CptainCrunch's points. I will remember not to make the mistake of buying Battlefront 3 and Mirror's Edge 2. Even if they fix Battlefield 4, DICE's communication has been useless to us, condescending to us, and downplays the problem at hand. Their Twitter is the epitome of complacency, and Ask DICE was a complete waste of time as they cherry-pick self-beneficial questions and PR-restrict meaningless answers. Reddit, Spring.Me, Twitter, or heck even Google Hangouts and Twitch would've been better places for moderated Q&As. A single hour from those options would've produced useful answers; sure half an hour of that would be spent banning those who taunt about bugs instead of asking questions, but maybe that's all we want to talk about and maybe that IS the problem AT FREAKING HAND! Maybe... And this is a crazy idea... Maybe their Twitter should start acknowledging this, instead of spending half a month producing a PR-restricted blog post? So why should I care about Battlefield 4, when the foundations of the company is so ignorant? Shareholders are their customers, not us. I regret buying Battlefield 4 on Black Friday through Origin (NOT Premium Edition, I refuse to pay the price of a full game for something modders could've done for free; I intended to wait until a 60% off discount or more happens sometime in the distant future). I am so stupid for caving in and buying the physical disc and having it shipped to me (I have data caps and downloading 30 GBs is just asking for trouble with my ISP).

Until DICE/EA fixes the bugs within their company and actually bother to care to make an attempt to escape their Worst Company of America nomination, I'd rather spend my money on Serellan, who made the same launch mistakes, but their communication and perseverence at redeeming themselves convinced me to buy four copies (at a huge discount of course). I should also add they're just a 10-man team and in 5 months the game has 8 patch updates and free DLC, and is already at a playable state (technically 9 since one has a wrecked leg from a recent car accident and I think is still recovering at this time). The game lacks options to customize server options though, and the mod tools aren't ready yet. So yeah, the game can be broken and flat out unplayable, but there are ways to fix your company to learn from that horrible mistake of botching the first-impression of your released product. I just wished I saved my money from BF4 to support Serellan more.

Don't get me wrong, I have not had severe issues with BF4 and have had a lot of fun in the game. My frustration is that all my friends that I play with have. I cant play with anyone for long periods of time as they disconnected by EA/the game or get frustrated and leave.

I EXPECTED BF4 to be a mess on release because EVERY Battlefield game has been. The problem is what Zips has already said though.

So a few days ago they released console patches and all these bugs came out with it. So today they released the PC patch. Guess what? Same bugs in that patch. I'm also hearing a lot of good fixes in the patch and a lot of people are happy with the adjustments and things the patch did, but its going to get overshadowed with "more broken stuff" instead of what HAS been fixed.

Its going to work out, I don't really doubt that. Its just who will be left once we get to that point? Having a working game with no one playing it isn't very fun. 2142 was the WORST launched Battlefield game in the entire history of Battlefield....until now.

So my frustrations come from others, not my own. I don't pretend to have the answers or that programming is easy or anything like that, but messing up console is pretty bad. Even if you have 4 of them to code on. It shows that Q&A may be picking up these bugs but have no power or authority to do anything about it other than tell people "here is the list". I blame both DICE and EA for this release. A month or so ago it was "Blame EA not DICE", but I was saying NO, this is a dual problem.

I really believe, and this may seem naive, that many in DICE are trying to fix the game and get it going. There are a lot of passionate people at DICE, but they are on a time table and when time runs out they will get their new orders and have to move on to the next project. They cant work on BF4 forever and EA requires money and they require a pay check.

I don't think anyone was stupid for buying BF4. You may regret your purchase, and I understand that, but I don't think anyone was stupid. The alpha was pretty good. The beta was a bit better. Things were looking great. Release was rough, but we all should have known that. But I was really thinking two to three months and everything would be good. We are heading toward 5 months and I just don't know how its going to pan out.

I have been telling the people that would listen to not buy Battlefront right away, but its hard because people want to believe that game will be great. I'm sure it will be, but I don't think it will be on release and I think "we" are going to see the same bugs and issues that are in BF3 and 4. I say "we" because I am not getting it at all.

I don't remember the Youtuber, I think it might have been Kulprit008. Might have been during a Battlefield Podcast as well. It would be hard to find because it was a statement in the overall video, not the main focus.

Correct on all counts (why didn't anybody comment on my horrible suggestion of having an Alpha a mere 6 months before release? Upon re-reading that, that's way too late for an Alpha! Make it a year or more before release if you have the guts to do a public Alpha!). This is why I'm saying DICE and EA needs to fix themselves as a company, if they are conditioned to accept the way things are. The anonymous tester who made the 300 vs. millions excuse seriously doesn't have a leg to stand on. While we lack information to completely deny that excuse, it's still flimsy enough with the circumstantial evidence we have to make DICE look bad with said excuse. And their claims of improving transparency with Battlelog and Ask DICE just don't work, because they don't seem to understand that 3/4 of our frustrations aren't even related to the game itself! We talk about the game, but what are we seriously upset about? A $110 game that doesn't function like one? Patches that break alongside fixing? Community Managers giving the everything is A-OK? EA prioritizing shareholders? Executives exploiting on said shareholders? Frowning upon user-generated content (modding) and smiling upon retail DLC? Always being compared to Activision as a company and not just their games?

Actually no. Those are minor complaints. The ultimate complaint and the largest bug in the foundation of both DICE and EA that they will never ever fix no matter how good their quality assurance department is... Conditioning us that this is okay for us to deal with. That we should be okay with this and need to support the devs by buying their products and let them earn their keep to stay alive. Our hard earned cash requires good work, but they are paid by us, so we need to support them even if their work is sub-par. Because it's always okay to put up with a lack of quality service that comes with an expensive AAA product. We were conditioned by EA and DICE to be okay with this. And that... Is why I feel so darn stupid. Because I apparently support products whose supplemental services cater more to shareholders than well... Myself. And I'm okay with it. I kept linking to Ben Kuchera's article, and I'll do it one more time. Look at "WHY IS THIS OK?". Here's another one who noticed how much that stood out. And I can prove this ultimate problem of conditioning us to "deal with it" with your very post, CptainCrunch.

So apparently we are to assume every game from DICE should be utter trash, and that we should pre-order to get the goodies, but not actually start playing until 3-4 months in, based on past experiences in previous poor launches. So it's not that EA/DICE didn't learn their lessons, but it's rather they established a working system that involves rushing unpolished releases, and then polishing them later. Shareholders get their product shipped and their performance numbers (high pre-order and launch sales), and gamers will eventually get their product working. This is the ultimate bug that will never be fixed, and somehow I'm okay with this, and will give my hard-earned cash for the solid work I put in for something that is broken, but will eventually be addressed.

I'm not accusing you. I merely highlighted the problem you mentioned in your post. I've been conditioned to tolerate poor supplemental service on defective products, or I wouldn't have bought BF4. Therefore I am stupid. I'm actually quite conflicted as to whether or not I should go for the Steam sale on Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and Battlefield: Vietnam expansion pack. I'm tempted, because I'm still stupid.

(Oh and if the YouTuber made a comment about it without being the focus of the video, then I'm not going to find it.)

Well, Its assumption to me because that is what has happened with every game. The only game I don't know about is 1942 because I came into it in the end, after some patches. I tend to look at several things, including the past, and that's my conclusion. Its why I think Battlefront is going to have some issues.

Every previous Battlefield game today runs very well and is very stable. BC2 is in pretty good shape. Heck, BF3 is in pretty good shape. 2142 was pretty good after the second patch, maybe third.

So, I dont know, maybe I am conditioned, but it's always been that way. I don't feel that it has been gradual, but every time. It's just BF4 is this way a lot longer than previous titles.

Also, again, I'm frustrated by proxy. The game has run very well for me aside from the foundation issues of hitreg and sound problems. If the entire BF4 community was in the same condition I am in, we would probably just be talking about adjusting "netcode" related things and doing some balancing.

So thanks for blaming me for all the problems

You're welcome.

Seriously though, my point behind the conditioning is that we're willing to buy DICE's games even if they haven't learned a damn thing in past defective products, because we are okay with waiting for future patches to basically complete the game. And if the price goes up (and it has), we'll be willing to pay for it. I mean, a defective $110 game from any other company wouldn't survive at all. You would think looking at past titles would be enough to stop buying them at all. In your case though, maybe you weren't conditioned, since your experience overall was actually better than mine, therefore you weren't assuming you were buying a defective product, but rather watched everyone else buy defective products. But I will say expecting this to happen, is our admittance that DICE refuses to improve themselves, because they are part of EA's culture.

P.S. It's all your fault. Capitalism is entirely your fault and yours alone. You even inspired the founder to create Electronic Arts, so good job CptainCrunch! The seeds of evil were planted in wealthily rich American soil by your hands you foolish man!

P.P.S. I ended up buying Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and the Vietnam expansion. I originally wanted to gift Vietnam to someone who has BC2 and to play it using family sharing, but gifting is disabled for expansions (or at least for Vietnam). Either way, the hypocrisy of mine hurts really bad. I intend to skip out on Battlefront 3 and Mirror's Edge 2 though. And will consider Visceral Games' Battlefield if it's not an overpriced unpolished release.