March Patch Notes (formerly february)

[PieceOfMind]

I guess now we both know what happens when we make assumptions.

By the way, even if it had been an internally-appointed deadline, it'd be a choice between:
1. Release the patch with a serious issue in it. Meet the deadline but cause headaches for some end users.
2. Release the patch a day or two late with the serious issue resolved. Miss the deadline but cause fewer headaches for end users.

It's not obvious at all to me which is the more unprofessional. Seems it would depend a lot on what exactly the issue was that delayed the patch's release. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

[Camikaze]

I reckon it's pretty clear that 1 2 is preferable over 2 1. But as you say, both are unprofessional. That it's symptomatic doesn't really help in its defence.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I reckon it's pretty clear that 1 is preferable over 2. But as you say, both are unprofessional. That it's symptomatic doesn't really help in its defence.

Why do you say pretty clear? If for example the serious issue was a bug that in 30% of games caused an unavoidable crash before turn 50, that would be serious enough to warrant delaying the patch for as long as necessary to fix it. As long as civ5 uses Steam's relatively forced-on-user patching system, I'd much rather no patch than a patch that breaks the game further.

 

[Camikaze]

Gah. Sorry. Meant 2 over 1.

 

[JohnnyW]

By the way, even if it had been an internally-appointed deadline, it'd be a choice between:
1. Release the patch with a serious issue in it. Meet the deadline but cause headaches for some end users.
2. Release the patch a day or two late with the serious issue resolved. Miss the deadline but cause fewer headaches for end users.

It's not obvious at all to me which is the more unprofessional. Seems it would depend a lot on what exactly the issue was that delayed the patch's release. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

No, answer (2) is not unprofessional at all, however (1) is extremely so. A public deadline is a promise. An internal deadline is a goal.

 

[Camikaze]

Internally appointed is still presumably public, I assume. It just means that it wasn't the developers who set themselves a deadline, but 2K. But it's public whether determined by the developers themselves or whether internally appointed, so rather unprofessional in either case.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Gah. Sorry. Meant 2 over 1.

Ah, you'll have to forgive me for not picking up on that.

No, answer (2) is not unprofessional at all, however (1) is extremely so. A public deadline is a promise. An internal deadline is a goal.

Sorry, what I meant was an internally-appointed publicly-announced deadline. I intended it to mean the same as when you said "self-appointed public deadline". This is because we're talking about the Feb/March civ5 patch, where obviously the patch was announced a couple weeks before its ETA.

 

[JohnnyW]

Sorry, what I meant was an internally-appointed publicly-announced deadline. I intended it to mean the same as when you said "self-appointed public deadline". This is because we're talking about the Feb/March civ5 patch, where obviously the patch was announced a couple weeks before its ETA.

My bad. (2) is still the better choice, but it is still unprofessional as well.

not meeting self-appointed and public deadlines is extremely unprofessional; even with excuses.

I will add a caveat that if outside factors affect the companies work then missing a deadline can be understandable. (I'm thinking if your servers get hacked or a lead programmer gets killed, etc., even less extreme stuff like that.) Bad coding is entirely controlled internally and isn't an acceptable reason to miss a public deadline. Internal factors must be considered when making announcements like that. If a company isn't sure of its programmer's capabilities then they shouldn't go around announcing deadlines.

This is all hypothetical anyway since the date was apparently an ETA.

Having ETAs which end up being nowhere close to the actual time of delivery is extremely unprofessional too. Again, this isn't the case with the patch, I'm just pointing it out; if anyone has played League of Legends (by Riot) you know what I'm talking about. They also charged for something they promised would be free - another majorly unprofessional move (again, Riot, not Firaxis or 2K).

 

[Moaf]

I'm still having trouble with the term "unprofessional". Is calling someone as working like an unprofessional valid when you have just one incident where an error occured?

So, in your example, a fault happened somewhere (e.g. the project leader underestimate the taks at hand, or because of fiscal matters the publisher has to put an earlier deadline). Does it mean that they are working like unprofessionals? We would only know that if faults like this happen on a regular basis.

 

[Camikaze]

I'm still having trouble with the term "unprofessional". Is calling someone as working like an unprofessional valid when you have just one incident where an error occured?

So, in your example, a fault happened somewhere (e.g. the project leader underestimate the taks at hand, or because of fiscal matters the publisher has to put an earlier deadline). Does it mean that they are working like unprofessionals? We would only know that if faults like this happen on a regular basis.

Well, that's why the incident wasn't too helpful for them. It could be seen as a non-isolated incident, in line with the general 'unprofessional' handling of the entire game as a whole. This is very debatable (as has been amply proven on this forum), but being another in a serious of bungles does, I think, qualify it for such a descriptor. Simply put, incorrectly labelling something quite important gives the impression of a lack of effort or a lack of care. That seems unprofessional.

 

[Polish]

Don't think it was unprofessional at all to miss the deadline.

I appreciated the fact that they announced at all what they were working on an when they THOUGHT it would be available. I think we are all better served by a development team trying to be as transparent as possible. I for one would much rather have them miss an announced target than say nothing at all about what they were working on and when it might be available.

 

[Camikaze]

For people who are trying to let us know when they think something is going to be ready, they're always very reluctant to release an ETA.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

What was it "late" by, like two days or something? Oh, woe is me!

What a "bungle" and a disaster! I was forced to GO OUTSIDE that weekend.

 

[Trias]

What was it "late" by, like two days or something? Oh, woe is me!

What a "bungle" and a disaster! I was forced to GO OUTSIDE that weekend.

Not even that. It was released first thing in the morning on March 1st.

 

[Camikaze]

That's not really the point; I played with the new patch for the first time this evening.

 

[JohnnyW]

I'm still having trouble with the term "unprofessional". Is calling someone as working like an unprofessional valid when you have just one incident where an error occured?

So, in your example, a fault happened somewhere (e.g. the project leader underestimate the taks at hand, or because of fiscal matters the publisher has to put an earlier deadline). Does it mean that they are working like unprofessionals? We would only know that if faults like this happen on a regular basis.

Similar to what Camikaze said, doing 1 unprofessional action does not necessarily mean you are entirely unprofessional. If the severity is high enough it will. If small actions happen frequently enough it will.

How many incidents and of what size make you "unprofessional"? Well, that's defined by each individual judging the actions, what the actions are, what they're related to, etc. For example: your coworker may not care that you showed up to the staff meeting 5 minutes late, but maybe your boss will fire you. Different people value different things at different levels.

We can still easily state that missing deadlines is unprofessional.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

The point is that a game centered on immersive content (civ) is not as immersive as a smiple game based around shooting people, rescuing hostages, and defusing bombs.

Ahhhh... *NOW*, i finally get it.
Immersion is in a clear but indirect relation to what we expect from gameplay when taken into any contexts.
The Empire Building or the Adrenaline rush of RTS.
Slow or fast. Casual easiness or nerdy Hardcore.

We all simply interact with conditions and rulesets... in anything!

 

[Zyxpsilon]

I guess now we both know what happens when we make assumptions...

Hold on - i always assume everybody in these Forums types worthy participation to discussion(s). It's just that (as usual) mood swings & emotional content creeps in to interfere with the flow. Such is, time & life i believe.
Even i, am human enough to admit it.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

It just means that it wasn't the developers who set themselves a deadline, but 2K.

Given the publisher has the upper hand on *any* product... i'd say a formal release date is both inclusive and considerably more precise than announcements even if shredded in secret or made public (to them at 2K) on coincidental evidence factored by the developer's hint on solidly compiled results.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Not even that. It was released first thing in the morning on March 1st.

I was right. Proof!