I'm not saying that your experience doesn't give you an insight into this, because obviously it does. But the fact that you're not a game developer does however mean your insight on this fails you massively though. I develop games, now just in my flat but have worked in small teams and large ones, and have also developed non-game software in the past, both in my flat and working for large organisations so I have a personal insight into both of these arenas and I really really don't think people know how difficult it is to develop PC games.
You have MFC or .NET, oracle frontends, or web 2.0 applications, or practically any other non-game development, then that will work on practically EVERY PC in the world with little worries. If you're writing software for business clients then again, your target PCs and users are a lot more predictable. I'm not saying this is always the case, but there is no comparison really. It's why console games are generally more reliable than PC games. EVERY console is identical. By comparison it's a piece of cake.
PC Games on the otherhand are a living nightmare to develop. You could pump millions into QA but still not be able to test 1/100th of the possible configurations of video cards,OS's, system settings and processors that combinations of could for some reason or another cause fatal problems. On games that are built on existing technology this effect is mitigated with time,so you do get products that are reliable on most configurations, but they are very much standing on the shoulders of giants (using existing 3D tech or whatever) with good QA these games get lauded as being the antithesis of these kind of games, but the fact this game is built using completely new technology is overlooked by the consumers, even though they would be quick to complain if the same tech was milked to death.
People who cry foul when a selection of people have problems (who are, in all likelihood compared to the actual amount of people who bought the game worldwide, less than a percent of a percent) simply do not understand. It can't be predicted and QA can't just magically ensure there aren't hidden demons in the code ready to strike, no matter HOW long or HOW much money is spent on it. It's this understanding that makes all the ill-informed and reactionary feet stomping so infuriating to read.
Not to downplay what you do, programming is a hard job and requires a lot of talent regardless, but you have literally no idea the sheer gulf of difference between game development and business development. Especially since gameplay design is often an iterative process where software development tends to have more fixed goalposts. Sure features may need changes or extra development due to not being easy to use, or fast enough, or whatever. But again I found the potential for goal posts to move dramatically much more severely in the commercial games industry.
And dare I say it? AAA 3D game development is many orders more complicated than application or database programming. I have done both extensively, and this is fact. Hate to be blunt about it, but there you go. Sorry.
Lastly, and most importantly... it's 2K that are dictating release dates and whatnot, not Firaxis. I'm pretty sure it's not the coder's fault, the QA department's fault, or Sid's fault... It probably goes pretty far up the chain of 2K before the order on an immovable release date was made, and this will have been down to hundreds of reasons way beyond our possible understanding or awareness. To simplify it and say 'they should have waited two weeks' without any of the facts, and just to assume some kind of 'money grabbing greed' is wildly ignorant.
Look at Elemental's release. It was released before the release date, and was a buggy mess that makes complaints about Civ look laughable, to be honest. Add to that Stardock previously released the 'Charter' that said that everyone deserves a finished game out the box. How embarrassing!! Was that decision to release greed?
No. They clearly HAD to release it when they did, for whatever reason (probably financial) and they get dragged through the mud. I'm sure they knew the situation with the game when they released, so why didn't they just spend an extra six months sorting out all the issues? Well they couldn't, clearly, or they would have. Obviously.
Finally, let us not forget that QA from Firaxis were made redundant prior to the release of the game. The reason for this? Who knows. But obviously there is more going on here than fits into most people here's little cosy simple view of game development and you shouldn't be so quick to judge and cry foul. Certainly not at Firaxis.
Yeah, so Civ 5 could have done with a couple of weeks extra for testing and bug fixing. But most people seem to have pre-ordered the game. What difference does it make whether you have it with a few bugs, or whether you get it a couple of weeks later with less / no bugs? I'd rather have it sooner rather than later, frankly. If I had to wait another two weeks I'd probably go insane, I'd rather get a taste of the experience even if it's not initially perfect.
Just put it in a drawer and consider it an early beta, if you like, and come to it a couple of weeks later and pretend it's release day. I fail to see what the problem is? Like paying $60 and not getting what you want the millisecond you part with your money has never happened in the history of humanity and not been some massive scandal outside buggy games.
